asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to seek to introduce for parents a right of appeal against their children's names being registered as at risk; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. The decision to place a child's name on a register is an administrative procedure which does not involve a change in the legal status of the child, and therefore a right of appeal is not appropriate. Good professional practice should, however, entail keeping parents informed and involved.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply Does he agree that the placing of a child on the "at risk" register inevitably becomes known and puts its parents in an invidious position if the placing on the register has been inaccurate or based on false information? Will he consider issuing guidelines to social services departments to ensure that parents are adequately involved at the earliest possible stage and have an adequate chance to get their child's name removed?

I certainly accept that this is an area where great care is needed, and I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. However, I hope he will agree that we should take proper steps to ensure the protection of children who may be at risk. The balance is a difficult one.

At a time when there is growing concern about the number of children in danger, does not the "at risk" register provide a straightforward and simple way of ensuring some protection for children who might be in danger? Would not increasing the bureaucracy defeat the system, which is working well?

My hon. Friend has confirmed some of the reservations that I express. There is a difficult balance here, and I note the point made by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from pensioners and others regarding the implications for the social security system of the payment by them of standing charges for gas, electricity and telephone; and if he will make a statement.

Representations are received from time to time that pensioners should not be required to pay standing charges for gas, electricity or telephones. These are matters for the industries concerned. The social system contributes significantly towards heating costs, including standing charges, through the indices used to set benefit levels.

Do I take it from that answer that this Government, with the new caring image that they tried to portray at the Tory party conference, are not going ,to do anything about standing charges? Is the Minister aware that it would cost only about £300 million to abolish these charges for pensioners?

On a point of information, the cost would be not £300 million but £600 million. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind, on the question of caring, that supplementary benefit heating additions have risen by one and a half times the rise in fuel prices since this Government came to power.

If standing charges for social security recipients were abolished, would that not put up the unit costs of telephones, electricity and gas? How much benefit would that be to pensioners and others on benefits? If those costs were passed on to the population, would that not bring in many people on low incomes?

My hon. Friend is right. He explains precisely why statutory industry consumer councils do not favour the abolition of standing charges. Abolition would increase unit costs dramatically, particularly for pensioners who use large amounts of fuel.

Does the Minister accept that a Bill before the House would remove standing charges for pensioners without increasing the unit costs of gas and electricity? Does he further accept that this winter many pensioners will die from hypothermia because they are afraid to turn on their gas heaters and will not be able to pay their gas and electricity bills? Will the Minister abolish standing charges for pensioners so that they do not have to experience another freezing winter because they cannot pay their bills?

I have made clear the Government's position on standing charges. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that heating assistance comes in a variety of ways. In addition to supplementary benefit and heating additions, I shall shortly be bringing before the House proposals to replace the previous exceptionally severe weather payments.

Is the Minister aware that in the first half of 1985 20 per cent. more pensioners over the age of 80 died of hypothermia than in the whole of 1984? Will he take action to prevent that and seriously consider abolishing standing charges to save old people from suffering?

I have made clear twice that abolishing standing charges is not necessarily the way to deal with the problem. I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about hypothermia. That is why we have made significant increases in heating additions over the last few years. The Minister for Health is studying the figures for hypothermia for last winter to find out precisely why there was an increase in deaths from hypothermia.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep feeling among many pensioners about the unfairness of standing charges? Is he further aware that the telephone can mean the difference between life and death for many elderly people living alone? Will my hon. Friend at least look at the problem in relation to telephones and the social security system?

I understand what my hon. Friend says and I know of his long-standing concern about the problem, but the abolition of standing charges does not seem to be well targeted, and it is not necessarily the best way of dealing with the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further savings he envisages can be made by health authorities from cost improvement programmes in 1986–87.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress made in obtaining value for money in the National Health Service.

Health authorities in England have made substantial progress in obtaining improved value for money in recent years. Cost improvement programmes have yielded savings of over £250 million in the last two financial years. This is a direct increase in the resources available to develop and improve service to patients. For 1986–87, authorities plan further cash savings of some £150 million.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Would the public be right to conclude that the substantial savings already made—and those still to be made — have contributed to the largest ever capital building programme in the NHSS?

Yes, Sir. Over £130 million is to be spent on the capital building programme this year. We are restoring the cuts in the capital building programme made by the last Labour Government. In view of the pathetic story in ihe Dairy Mirror today I must say that over the next three years we plan to complete more than 100 major new hospial schemes. Altogether, we have 380 hospital schemes in the hospital building programme.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the contracting out process in the National Health Service has produced substantial savings which are being used for patient care?

The latest figures show that that has produced £63 million, with about half the operation completed. All those savings are going into direct patient care, which shows the worth of the competitive tendering process.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the millions of people throughout the country who saw the television programmes broadcast last night and last week surely cannot believe a word that the right hon. Gentleman says about the NHS, either with regard to savings or any other matter? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the evidence given in those programmes shows the rapid decay of the Health Service throughout the country?

Record resources are being devoted to the Health Service. Even more important, a record amount of health care is being provided through the NHS under this Government. No amount of television programmes can deny that fact.

Has the Secretary of State studied the report of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing, which shows that cost efficiency savings—which are really disguised cuts—have reached the end of their lives? Therefore, would it not be absolute nonsense to suggest that in 1986 and 1987 there will be greater patient care from savings that simply cannot be made?

Quite simply, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The health authorities are planning on a cost improvement programme of £150 million for the year 1986–87.

Cuts.

They arc not cuts, but resources that are now being directed into patient care. I would have thought that that was what the Health Service was all about.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that a number of hospitals in the private sector appear to be able to operate at lower true operating costs than hospitals in the public sector? Are there not lessons to be learnt from that?

I am sure that there are lessons to be learnt, but, to give credit to the NHS, we must recognise the enormous improvements that it has made over the past four or five years in effectiveness, especially in management within the service.

Is the Secretary of State aware that both the National Association of Health Authorities and the BMA believe that under current financing plans the NHS will be £650 million short this year to maintain even its existing standards? How will the Government pay for the promises made by the right hon. Gentleman at the Tory party conference to increase the number of hip operations, heart bypass operations, bone marrow transplants, cataract operations and cervical cancer screening, which, in total, will cost an additional £150 million a year? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman be honest and admit that those improvements can he afforded only by major cuts elsewhere in the NHS?

The hon. Gentleman's claim is wholly untrue. The money and resources for those improvements are already in our plans and they build on the improvements that we have made since 1978. For example, since then heart bypass operations have risen by more than 7,000—an increase of 230 per cent. over the last Labour Government — hip replacements have risen by almost 10,000—an improvement of 35 per cent. over the last Labour Government — and cataract operations have risen from 35,000 to 55,000. All those are vast improvements over the last Labour Government.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in Leeds and other areas hospital authorities are making savings in their budgets by giving patients prescriptions for only seven days, so that they have to obtain repeat prescriptions from a doctor at additional cost to themselves? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that in some cases chemists 'are advising patients not to have their prescriptions dispensed but to ask their doctors for one prescription for a longer period to try to avoid the patient having to bear that additional cost? Surely it is nonsense to transfer money in that way so that in the end the patient has to pay?

I shall certainly study any real evidence that the hon. Gentleman can supply on that matter. I know of no general evidence to suggest that prescription charges are having such an effect.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further plans he has for the better use of manpower in the National Health Service.

We are continuing to build upon the success already achieved in improving the use of National Health Service manpower to provide a better service to patients. This is part of a continuing process to improve the use of NHS manpower, and the proportion of staff working directly with patients increased from 58 per cent. in 1978 to 63 per cent. in 1985.

My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the great strides that he has made in the contracting out of laundry and catering services. However, what plans does he have for contracting out medical services, especially where a health authority has long waiting lists and the private sector can provide a better and cheaper service than the health authority?

I have no plans of the sort that my hon. Friend puts forward. However, we are in favour of there being the maximum co-operation between the National Health Service and the private sector.

Does the Secretary of State accept the analysis of the increases in nursing manpower levels which was presented in last night's "Panorama" programme. which showed that his claims, when analysed in depth, display a contraction of the degree of nursing available for patient care? If he does not accept that analysis, does he intend to take "Panorama" to court?

I am not sure that the opportunity of taking "Panorama" to court arises, but I do not accept the statement as it has been repeated by the hon. Gentleman. Since 1978, almost 63,000 more nurses and midwives have been employed within the NHS.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that although we agree that 66,000 more nurses and 22,000 more doctors have entered the Health Service over the past few years, hospital beds are being closed and our letter bags become fuller and fuller of complaints about delayed operations? Is it possible that hospital manpower is directed too much towards administration and not enough towards nursing? Is it not time that patients had more say in the matter than those who run the service?

I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's final point. The proportion of manpower involved in direct patient care—in nursing and so forth —has increased, not decreased. That is the emphasis of the manpower policy.

In view of the "Panorama" programme last night and other evidence throughout the country that doctors are having to spend a vast amount of their time finding beds for patients who need them, would not the Minister's plans for the better use of manpower be more useful if he ensured that doctors are able to do the job for which they have been trained, which is curing patients, rather than undertaking the administrative task of finding beds and operating theatres to enable them to cope with patients' needs?

The hon. Gentleman knows that record numbers of in-patients are currently being treated within the Health Service, and hundreds of thousands more than were treated under the previous Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has had further discussions with the chairman of the North Western regional health authority about the authority's capital expenditure programme; and if he will make a statement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) wrote to my hon. Friend on 12 August setting out the state of play at that date. Since then we have had no particular meetings with Sir John Page, the chairman of the North Western regional health authority, on this subject, although I have met him several times, and I shall be in North-Western region tomorrow.

I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. Is she aware of the great concern in Bolton that there should be no delay in starting the new hospital building programme? Will she give a commitment that there will be adequate funds to ensure an early start to the building and operation of this much needed development?

Yes, indeed. Despite the article in this morning's Daily Mirror, I am able to confirm that the programme of rebuilding the Bolton general hospital, to which I think my hon. Friend is referring, is due to start, as agreed, in September 1989. Some work is under way already. The region's plan to upgrade the X-ray department and to extend the pathology department at a cost of over £1 million is already out to tender, and work will start on site in April next year.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the United Kingdom regional development programme 1986, which has been published today in national newspapers, in commenting on health care in the regions of the north, said that the inadequate resources available to cater for people's health problems meant that the problems were not being resolved?

When the Conservative party came into office in 1979 the National Health Service in many parts of the country, including the north of England, was in a pathetic state. We therefore took on board the point that the hon. Gentleman failed to make at that time—that not enough money was being spent. I am glad to report that, in the north-west alone, we have spent £27 million on the Royal Preston hospital, and £17–9 million on phase 1 of Hope hospital, Salford. We are in the process of spending £12 million on phase 2 of Tameside general hospital and £19 million on phase 2 of Manchester royal infirmary. I have a long list of hospitals. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to read out all of them, I shall do so.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the north-west 10-year hospital building programme will cost in excess of £400 million? Will she ensure that all efforts are made to avoid any delays in start dates and that resources are made available to ensure that the revenue consequences of this huge programme are met?

The north-west region has the second highest capital allocation in England. This year it is about £71–5 million. As my hon. Friend knows, that compares with the 1978 figure of only £36 million. In other words, under this Government, in cash terms, the figure has doubled. I take the point that my hon. Friend made about cash being made available to open schemes. That is the basis on which schemes are agreed. The problems to which he referred should have been eradicated.

Is the hon. Lady aware that my constituents in the North West regional health authority area are fed up with the boasting and complacency of the Secretary of State, now echoed by herself? My constituents measure value for money in a simple way: they have paid their national insurance contributions all their working lives, and when they need a cataract operation they are told that they will be placed on a waiting list of two to three years, unless they go private, when they can have the operation the following week.

The hon. Gentleman would not seek to deny that we are now looking after far more patients in the North West region, as we are throughout the country. Some of the waiting lists reflect the fact that services have been created where there were none before and that the operations are successful where they were less successful before. In other words, success is breeding its own demand. We are glad to recognise that and to provide the resources to meet it.

I add my good wishes to my hon. Friend in her onerous task. When she meets the chairman of the North West regional health authority tomorrow, will she express to him the concern expressed to me by my constituents and by many constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House about the potential closure of the children's arthritic ward at Wrightington hospital, which is a regional specialty and could well be a national specialty? Will she express her concern, as expressed to her predecessor by a wide-ranging delegation, and assure me categorically that she will not take a decision to close that ward until she has had a chance to hear the views of those who care enough about the future of the hospital?

I should be delighted to take the opportunity to meet and discuss this question with my hon. Friend and take into account the points that he has made. I am quite certain that whatever plans are arranged and carried through will be for the benefit of the children concerned.

Tomorrow, when the Minister enjoys her fish and chips in the north-west, will she take the opportunity to ask Sir John Page how the region finances its capital building programme, which was the point to which the original question referred? Will she ask him, for example, whether it is a fact that much of that capital programme is financed from existing services, with those services consequently having to close down to finance new capital expenditure? Will the hon. Lady ask the chairman of the region whether it is a fact that, if a district health authority in the north-west sells assets, only a proportion of those assets return to the district, the rest being taken to finance capital projects in other parts of the region?

The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. May I first remind him that I learnt to make fish and chips in the north-west, where I was born and brought up. A substantial part of the capital programme is intended, as the hon. Gentleman knows—indeed, he has called for this — to replace old and outdated facilities. It does not make sense for us to spend money keeping Victorian hospitals going when we could spend perhaps the same or only slightly more to create brand new facilities which will last well into the next century. That is the the view that we take. As far as I am aware, it has always been the case that capital is taken by the region and redistributed and that the districts have a substantial claim to that money. But if another district, which may well serve the hon. Gentleman's constituents, has a need also, it is right that the money should go there.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants in Islington, North are currently in receipt of supplementary benefit; and what is the equivalent figure for June 1983.

Islington, North is one of six constituencies served for social security purposes by the Department's offices at Finsbury Park, Highgate and Hoxton. In May 1983, 41,373 people were receiving supplementary benefit from these three offices. In May this year this figures was 50,530.

Would the Minister care to reflect on the fact that that represents a grave increase in poverty throughout the area concerned? What staffing cuts have there been at the three offices? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the staffing cuts have led to a high level of rent arrears among people on housing benefit and often to claims being wrongly assessed because there are insufficient staff to deal with them, leading consequently to great misery among the people of the area and to unacceptable delays in dealing with queues of urgent cases involving supplementary benefit allocations?

On the question of overall poverty, the hon. Gentleman should remember that since 1979 the volume of social security spending has risen by 35 per cent. and that nearly half that spending represents real increases in the average benefits paid to meet those needs. We recognise the staffing problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As a result, we have increased the complement for those three offices from 500 to 582 staff, and we are building towards that figure.

Does the Minister realise that the staffing increases proposed by his Department are totally inadequate to provide a proper, prompt and decent service to claimants in those offices serving not only the northern but the southern part of Islington'? What are the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals to ensure that claimants are treated decently, properly, and promptly rather than as Dickensian supplicants?

We are anxious that all claimants should be treated properly, but I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that an increase of 82 on 500—an increase in complement of some 25 per cent. at the Finsbury Park office—is totally inadequate. We are taking steps to ensure that the refurbishment of that office, which was improved last year, is maintained.

As many of those in greater poverty are the long-term unemployed, as their numbers are increasing and as the Government have told the Common Market, whatever they may tell the people of this country, that they expect that to continue, can the Minister tell us when the Government expect to pay the long-term unemployed the long-term rate of supplementary benefit and bring them up to the poverty line?

Our whole objective is to target our benefits towards those in real need. Those have been identified, above all, as families with low incomes. The House will know that our benefits have been targeted in that direction.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to how many new day nursery places have been provided by social services departments in the year 1985–86.

There were 28,870 day nursery places provided by local authority social services departments in England at 31 March 1985. Final figures for 31 March 1986 are not yet available. However, the returns received so far show that the number of places increased in 19 authorities, decreased in 15 and remained the same in 57. Overall, there were a similar number of places at 31 March 1986 as the year before.

Does that not show that the situation is inadequate if one considers that the number of children subjected to physical and sexual abuse is increasing and that that leads to an increased demand for day nursery places? For example, in Sunderland the number of non-accidental injury registrations has increased by 50 per cent. over the past three years. What is more, Sunderland has a known demand that it cannot satisfy. Are not the care and protection of our children essential elements in a democratic society? What is the Minister going to do about the problems of Sunderland and other local authorities in a similar position?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we take the problem of child abuse very seriously. It is a matter of increasing worry and concern. The number of places nationally should be set in the context of the 28,000 places I have just mentioned, 24,000 places in voluntary and private nurseries, 42,000 full-time and 224,000 part-time places in nursery schools and nursery classes run by the local education authorities, 58,000 childminders, with places for 126,000 children and more than 400,000 places in playgroups. I consider that diversity and volume of services to be adequate.

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to her new post. As she has now been in office for a few weeks, may I ask her what plans she has developed to encourage social services depts to use registered childminders as an adjunct to and replacement of day nurseries, because the cost per place is more than half of day nursery provision? In that way she will be able to help twice as many children for the same resources.

I agree with my hon. Friend that childminder provision is most important. I can speak on that from personal experience. We are delighted to see that the number of childminder places went up by 29 per cent. between 1982 and 1985, and we encourage local authorities to improve that provision.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the DHSS under-fives initiative ends in April next year? Will she make a statement about the future of projects financed under that scheme? Is she aware that a number of projects providing services for children under five are at risk because they are located in council areas —[Interruption.] Is she aware that those projects at risk include three childminder support projects'? They are at risk of closure because they are located in boroughs which are being subjected to severe spending restrictions by the Department of the Environment. Will the hon. Lady, at the very least, consider a joint transitional funding arrangement so that her Department can pay half if local councils pay half of the cost of those projects which end in April next year?

Order. I appeal to the House to listen to the answers and questions.

I thank the hon. Lady for drawing attention to the Government's under-fives initiative. We have spent some £6–5 million over the past three years funding 110 different projects with 15 different agencies. The whole idea and intention was that it should be a pump-priming exercise. Many of those schemes have proven their worth and already have guaranteed funding from next year onwards.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received regarding the changes introduced in the board and lodgings allowance system.

We have received representations from various interested individuals and organisations about the ordinary board and lodge system and I have recently met the National Confederation of Registered Rest Homes Association to discuss the residential care sector.

Will the Minister accept that these new regulations are a disgrace, and are particularly vindictive against young homeless people? This is typified in the case of an 18-year-old who has lived in Burnley and Accrington all his life, but left his parents at the age of two, is no longer able to live with the people who were caring for him, and has now been told that after a certain number of weeks he must move on from Burnley if he wants to continue to receive his benefit? Is this not a disgrace, and should not these regulations be changed?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am familiar with the particular case that he raised, about which we have been in correspondence, and I am glad to say that the young man concerned is now in full employment. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticisms. We have carefully monitored the results of the board and lodging regulations, and many of the fears expressed when they were originally introduced have not come to fruition.

A great number of people in receipt of board and lodging payments are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Is this not unsatisfactory, and should we not move to abolish it at an early opportunity?

That is not a matter for me, but I am aware that local authorities have strong powers concerning bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Where appropriate, I hope that they will exercise those powers.

In the process of monitoring the operation of the board and lodging regulations, has the Minister found any evidence that unscrupulous landlords are switching to providing furnished accommodation? Has the Minister any knowledge of a recent programme on Scottish television which highlighted abuses in this sector, particularly of young people?

I have not seen the Scottish programme to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he gives me details I shall endeavour to do so. I am concerned that in certain areas there may have been an element of collusion between the landlords and the tenants over the regulations. There is some evidence that, as a result of our new regulations, many rental charges have been held, or in some cases reduced.

Does my hon. Friend consider that a private landlord is placed at an unreasonable disadvantage compared with the local housing authority in the matter of direct access to reimbursement of benefit for board and lodging?

It would be a generally attractive notion were the privately rented sector again in a position to offer more accommodation, particularly for young people. I hope that we shall soon reach that position.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to which hospitals in the London area are currently under consideration for closure.

In the London area, and I refer to the former GLC area, there are five hospitals whose total closure is either under formal public consultation, or where the consultation procedure has been completed but no final decision has yet been taken.

Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents are very angry at the threatened closure of St. James's hospital because of the valuable service that it provides, and, furthermore, that they are angry at the misleading way in which the Secretary of State bandied lists of hospital openings at the Tory party conference? Will he confirm that the truth about the hospital openings and closures list is that since the Government took office, 53 hospitals have opened or are planned to be opened, while 217 have been closed? That is the list, in my hand.

I accept that the Government are carrying through a larger than ever building programme in the National Health Service system. I noted in the Daily Mirror this morning the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) expressing some doubt about whether that programme would be completed. There is no doubt that his remarks are a throwback to his experience with the Labour Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware that over the past 20 years millions of people have moved out of London, and that the extra resources that are needed in constituencies such as mine, because people have moved there, must come from their getting a fairer share of the money? Is it not the case that the inefficiency of many London hospitals is responsible for squeezing resources in our areas?

I certainly endorse the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks that it is right to continue to ensure an equitable distribution of health resources around the country.

Why does the Government's health record always involve fiddling the statistics? Is the Secretary of State aware that his deputy, the then Minister for Health, stated in a parliamentary answer on 4 July that the total number of building projects under this Government was not 380, as the Secretary of State boasted at the Tory party conference, but only 153? Is he aware, as the Daily Mirror correctly stated today, that many of those projects will not start until the mid-1990s and that many will probably not start at all? Why cannot the Secretary of State be more honest and inventive about running the Health Service and less anxious about trying to save his political skin by fiddling the statistics?

Before the hon. Gentleman accuses anybody of fiddling the statistics, I invite him to recognise that he has compared figures for projects of over £2 million with projects of over £1 million. Let him stop fiddling the figures. The Government have no need to fiddle the figures. The hon. Gentleman has to resort to fiddling because he is so ashamed of the record of the Government of which he was a member.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with President Soares of Portugal. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

In the light of the increase in mortgage rates announced today, will the Prime Minister tell the House how much of the £4 billion that her Government borrowed in September was used to shore up the pound during the Tory party conference in Bournemouth?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that it is not the practice to comment in any way on intervention. Naturally, we are reluctant to increase interest rates, but when it becomes necessary to do so in order to keep downward pressure on inflation, we do not hesitate to take that step.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to congratulate the city of Glasgow on being the United Kingdom's nominee for the European city of culture 1990? Will my right hon. Friend also refute the absurd allegations by the Lord Provost of Edinburgh that Edinburgh's bid failed for political reasons? Is it not the case that Glasgow's hid was simply miles better?

I gladly respond to my hon. Friend's invitation to congratulate the city of Glasgow on winning the accolade of the city of culture and wish it well.

Does the Prime Minister recall saying just 11 days ago at the Conservative party conference that she wanted to conquer unemployment, north and south? How does she reconcile that with her Government's admission to the European regional development fund that, with unchanged policies, the future is frighteningly bleak, or with a policy of cutting public investment by more than 10 per cent. during the next two years? How can she say that she wants to conquer unemployment when unemployment is the weapon which she has mercilessly used for the past seven years and which she intends to go on using?

The report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was compiled from submissions from local and other public authorities designed to support their bids for grants from the European regional development fund. The figures to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are the very same planning assumptions which appear in the public expenditure survey, and there is nothing new. It is those figures applied to existing differentials. We have followed the practice of previous Governments in this.

None of that alters the fact that that document is a devastating indictment from within the Government of the Government's own record. If the right hon. Lady is concerned about unemployment, why does she not take the hint from that report and undertake public investment in Wales, in Scotland and in the northwest, north-east and south-west of England, to generate jobs now and provide a foundation for employment in the future instead of following the policy on which she insists?

If the right hon. Gentleman is tackling our record on providing capital expenditure for infrastructure, I remind him that the last Labour Government cut public sector capital expenditure by 20 per cent., National Health Service capital expenditure by 30 per cent. and expenditure on roads by 36 per cent. It is we who have restored many of those public sector programmes.

Nobody believes that. Will the right hon. Lady say whether she is prepared to accept the statement of the CBI that unless the Government take the initiative now on capital projects the United Kingdom will lose its chance and slip further behind in the competitive league? If she will not listen to the demands from all over England, Wales and Scotland, from the Opposition and from many others, will she accept the demands of the CBI?

May I say exactly what has happened with regard to spending on roads —[Interruption.] The Opposition do not want to hear the facts. Capital spending on motorways and trunk roads has increased by 25 per cent. in real terms to £900 million, National Health Service capital expenditure has increased by 22 per cent. in real terms since 1979, there has been investment of £2 ½ billion in railways and £5 billion on fixed assets in the gas industry, and capital expenditure on housing renovation is up 54 per cent. in real terms. Which of those figures does the right hon.. Gentleman say is wrong?

In considering the Peacock committee report, will my right hon. Friend uphold the recommendation about the need to improve the standards of service of the BBC, which have sunk to an all-time low so that, far from following the public service concept of informing, educating and entertaining, the BBC is now guilty of misinformation and even libel? Does not a heavy responsibility rest on the chairman and governors of the BBC to root out those responsible and to improve the standards of the corporation generally?

I am sure that the chairman designate of the BBC will wish to do everthing possible to achieve the highest possible standards for the BBC, which is the point of my hon. Friend's question and the wish of everyone.

Will the Prime Minister confirm the statement that came out of No. 10 Downing street yesterday from Mr. Bernard Ingham that the Government will not enter the EMS until after the next election? As our non-membership of the exchange rate mechanism has cost us so heavily, will the Prime Minister give some comfort to the millions of people who face a 1¼ per cent. increase in their mortgage rate?

As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, there is no change in the Government's position in relation to the EMS. I should point out, however, that although many of those who ask to go into the EMS think that it is somehow a soft option, we should probably have sharper and more rapid increases and decreases in interest rates if we belonged to the EMS than otherwise.

In view of my right hon. Friend's special responsibilities for science, will she take the opportunity today to look into the damage being done to the science budget by the impact of international exchange rate fluctuations?

We have been as generous as we possibly can with the science budget. As my hon. Friend is aware, we have made provision for more expenditure in the universities, especially for young people who hitherto were not able to have their theses considered. I will certainly look into the point raised by my hon. Friend, but I do not think that it is possible to compensate for it.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.

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

Will the right hon. Lady quote from that part of the United Kingdom regional development fund report which deals with the north-west and Greater Manchester as a whole, and which speaks of the terrifying prospect for the future for the unemployed and the imminent collapse of the infrastructure services in that area? Is that not a result of the Government's senseless and ruthless economic policies, and what is the right hon. Lady prepared to do to remedy that state of affairs?

No. I indicated that that report was compiled from submissions from local and other public authorities. It was designed to support their bids for grants from the European regional development fund. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to look at it he will find a copy in the Library, together with a copy of all previous reports under this and previous Labour Governments.

As the Opposition have given notice at their party conferences that they will abandon our nuclear defences, does my right hon. Friend consider that the red rose of the Labour party should be replaced by the white feather?

I do not believe that the Labour party will ever win an election, but if it did it would be catastrophic for the defences of Britain.

Will the Prime Minister spend some time today thinking about Aberfan and considering the needs of a community which, over the past 20 years, has rebuilt its future after the tragedy and disaster of 20 years ago this week?

I most certainly will. I was shadowing the Ministry of Fuel and Power when that tragedy occurred. I took part in the debate on that occasion and it is etched on my mind.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in the Sunday Times showing that the reductions in taxation on the top earners in Britain and in the United States since 1979 has resulted in an increase in revenue to this country? Does not that expose the fallacy of the Labour party's policy, which presumes to raise £3–5 billion from an increase in the level of taxation on top earners?

Yes. A reduction in the top rate of tax increased the yield from the top tax earners. We also need those top tax earners if we are to create the new businesses upon which new jobs depend. I agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.

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

In view of the sympathy which the Prime Minister has extended to the Prime Minister of Mozambique on the untimely death of President Samora Machel, can we expect her to tell the Government of South Africa that if they take steps to use this untimely death to further destabilise Mozambique the eyes of the world will be upon them and the whole situation in southern Africa — not merely South Africa — will deteriorate in an international way?

The death of President Samora Machel was a great shock and a great tragedy, not only for the people of that country, but for the whole of southern Africa. Naturally, we shall be watching the situation very carefully indeed. Our views on South Africa are well known. We dislike and deplore apartheid, but we wish its abolition to come from negotiation and not from sanctions.

My right hon. Friend may have read a report about the ill-timed visit of the Leader of the Opposition to Berlin and West Germany last week. Will she take every opportunity to reassure the people of Berlin, West Germany and our own armed forces that the Government and the people of the United Kingdom will never betray them?

I made it very clear when I went to Berlin that the defence of the West within NATO is indivisible and that we stand by our guarantee to Berlin.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.

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

I do not answer questions about party political matters from this Dispatch Box —[Interruption.]—and I do not necessarily accept what the hon. Gentleman says.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if she acceded to Opposition requests to cancel the Trident programme, thousands of jobs would be lost in Scotland, including at the Ravenscraig plant, which supplies the steel for Trident submarines? Do we not hear double standards from the Opposition on the issue of unemployment as well as on defence?

I should make it clear that Trident is a vital part of our defence, and this Government will go ahead with the Trident programme.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.

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

What guarantee can the Prime Minister give that anyone needing a blood transfusion will receive blood that is AIDS-free?

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Health is doing everything that he can to ensure that that is possible.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does it arise directly out of questions?

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) asked the Prime Minister a specific and important question about allegations in the press that witnesses have been interfered with by the chairman of the Conservative party. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to refuse—

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not responsible for the answers that are given.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. which arises out of questions. During Question Time my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to the United Kingdom's regional development programme. It is the first time that the Government have spelt out the stark future facing all our regions. The Prime Minister replied by trying to fudge the importance of the document and said that it was a compilation of the views of various regional and local authorities. In paragraph 1·3 of the Government's own submission it says:

"The United Kingdom Regional Development Programme sets out the economic difficulties of the regions and the Government's policies for alleviating these difficulties."

If the right hon. Gentleman made an application for a statement to be made it might be considered, but that point is not a matter for me.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does it arise directly out of questions?

The point of order arises from a matter raised at Question Time. You have repeatedly told the House, Mr. Speaker, that you would deprecate any action on the part of an hon. Member that brought the House into disrepute. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) raised a question involving the possibility that the House had been brought into disrepute by a right hon. Member who is also a member of the Cabinet. Would it not be wise of you to use whatever means are open to you to ask the Attorney-General to come to the House to answer questions about influence being exerted by a Cabinet member on Back Benchers and others, which might well be contrary to the law and which might lead the Attorney-General to want to make a statement?

It is not for me to ask Ministers to come before the House to answer allegations which, judging from what I hear and read, are pure speculation.