asked the Secretary of State for Social Services from which organisations representations were received asking him to simplify the payment of statutory sick pay.

Representations have been received from both sides of industry for changes and simplification of the statutory sick pay scheme. They include among employers' organisations the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation, the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses, the Pay-roll Alliance and the Association of Independent Businesses, and for employees' and consumer organisations, the TUC, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the Disability Alliance.

Is the real reason for cutting out the middle rate of statutory sick pay not simplification, as the Minister said, but savings of £19 million, which yet again have been made at the expense of the sick?

No. Eighty-five per cent. will receive the standard, which is the higher rate. It does not make sense to have two rates. It is true that there are savings of £19 million—against a background of nearly £750 million—but they will not all be at the expense of the sick because, as the hon. Lady knows, a very high proportion belong to occupational schemes.

Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) is correct. What the Minister has said today is wholly contrary to what was said by his Department less than a year ago when it claimed that the system was extremely simple and was working very well. Is not the only explanation the combination of the savings and the Government's desire to placate employers by this change while at the same time introducing statutory maternity pay, which neither employers nor mothers want?

That is not correct. The system is working well now. There have been strong requests for simplification, not just by employers. The increase in the lower rate will benefit those who receive statutory maternity pay.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last met the chairman of the North West Thames regional health authority; whether future capital expenditure projects for Bedfordshire were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend was able to discuss capital projects for south Bedfordshire with the chairman of the North West Thames regional health authority at the November meeting of regional chairmen. The regional health authority has provisionally identified expenditure of about £20 million in its capital programme for expenditure in south Bedfordshire.

As there has been a history of under-funding in south Bedfordshire resulting in towns like Leighton Buzzard still not having a hospital, will my hon. Friend join me in urging the North West Thames regional health authority to change its policy and increase capital expenditure to take account of recent and planned increases in population in the south of the county?

As I have told my hon. Friend, the regional health authority has acknowledged the desirability in the longer term of a community hospital at Leighton Buzzard. The authority also feels that additional development at the Luton and Dunstable hospital would be a proper precursor to that. I would hesitate to try to second guess that authority's judgment of the overall local situation.

Will the funds that the Minister is talking about ensure that there is no recurrence of the five occasions in the past two years when hospitals in Bedfordshire have had to cease taking waiting list patients in order to cope with emergency admissions?

The hon. Gentleman asks a typically irresponsible question. He knows perfectly well that the long-standing and important emergency bed service arrangements necessarily deal with the possibility that non-emergency cases may need to be deferred when emergency cases arise. That is entirely sensible.

While obviously not wishing to denigrate in any way any of the hospital developments in Bedfordshire, will my hon. Friend confirm that my constituents in Hemel Hempstead will not be expected to travel to Dunstable or for that matter to Northwick Park in order to get ENT services if capital developments take place in Dunstable?

If my hon. Friend is speaking about the possibility of a new hospital for east Hertfordshire, he will know that such a proposal is being considered by the Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to announce his decision on the proposed closure of the Wrightlington hospital children's ward.

Shortly, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that this matter has been going on for a long time and that it will be looked upon as very much a test of the Government's commitment to those in particular need in and around north central Lancashire? The sooner my hon. Friend can make a decision to relieve people of their doubts and worries about the future of the hospital and the services it provides, the better.

I recognise that, but I would rather take a little longer and get the decision right.

Does the Minister recognise that this matter worries all political parties and, equally, it worries the people of north-east Lancashire, who are anxious to see that there is no detriment to the service provided in this region?

I recognise that and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Any decision taken will be taken entirely in the interests of the patients and particularly of the children concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about charges for medication for those suffering from heart diseases; and if he will make a statement.

Since 1 January 1986 we have received 12 letters from hon. Members and three letters from members of the public about prescription charges for those suffering from heart disease.

Does my hon. Friend think it is fair that if a doctor chooses to treat a cardiac patient by surgery that operation and the back-up services are completely free, while if he decided to treat it medically the prescription charges have to be paid? Surely if it is possible to argue in favour of free needles for drug abusers, it should be possible in these circumstances to give free prescriptions to cardiac patients.

I hesitate to accept the proposition that any patient suffering from a condition that might give rise to a need for an operation should automatically receive free prescriptions in advance. I also hesitate to accept the parallel that my hon. Friend seeks to draw with some experimental projects designed to find out whether we can by that means help to curb the spread of the awful disease of AIDS.

In view of all the difficulties which arise, the various groups, and the number of people who do not pay prescription charges, would it not be better to consider the possibility of eliminating such charges altogether?

The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that prescription charges and the charges for the season tickets raise well over £100 million a year, which is an important contribution to the NHS budget, so I do not think that I wish to go down that track.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with the Wandsworth health authority as to the possible closure of St. James hospital, Balham, SW 12.

None, Sir. The matter is still under consideration locally and has not yet come to Ministers.

Is the Minister aware of the utter confusion now existing in Wandsworth because of the incompetence of the Wandsworth health authority in following the correct procedures on consultation and discussion in the community? Is she further aware of the complete opposition in the borough of Wandsworth, even of the Tory-controlled local authority, to the closure of St. James hospital? If public opinion is to mean anything, is it not time that the Wandsworth health authority took note of what the people of Wandsworth are saying and of their desire to keep this hospital open?

As regards procedures, the porposal to close St. James was agreed at the district health authority meeting on 27 November. It has not yet reached the South West Thames regional health authority, which will consider it on 28 January. If the region, the district and the CHC disagree, it will come to Ministers for consideration. That is the appropriate procedure.

Does the Minister agree that there is enormous pressure on hospital places, both in the Wandsworth area and in south London in general, and that this, combined with the inability of the Department of Health and Social Services to predict the extra places that will be needed as a result of a likely increase in the number of AIDS patients, makes it irresponsible to consider the closure of a major hospital at this stage?

The difficulty, as I understand it, is that St. James will need a very substantial sum of money spent on it very soon—about £12 million. The question is whether London patients are better served by spending money on an old hospital that might not suit their needs much longer or spending it on developing new and expanded services elsewhere in the same district.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will reconsider the trigger temperature of—1·5°C for severe weather payments.

It is our firm expectation that the trigger point for severe weather payments will be reached throughout the country this week. In view of this and of the unprecedented cold weather, I wish to make it clear today that the extra payment of £5 will be made to everyone in the qualifying groups for this week. These groups are householders on supplementary benefit with someone in their family who is 65 or over, chronically sick or disabled or under two. The Government are determined that vulnerable groups should know without delay where they stand, so that they will not be discouraged from heating their homes during this very cold spell. In the unlikely event that not all the areas reach the trigger point, action will be taken to validate the payments made.

Will the Minister accept—[HON. MEMBERS: "Thank him."]

Order.

Will the Minister accept that there are pensioners who are literally scared to death that they will be unable to pay the bills for the fuel required to heat their homes properly? Does he not also recognise—I believe that he has in his answer—that what is required is for all pensioners to be confident that they will have sufficient money throughout the winter months to pay their bills and heat their homes properly? That is what lies behind our suggestion that all pensioners on supplementary benefit should receive £5 a week from mid-December to March to enable them to pay their bills in the winter months.

We are absolutely determined that vulnerable groups should keep warm, which is why I have made the statement that I have just made. That is why we have increased each of the three tiers of special help for heating: supplementary benefits; the heating additions, which we have extended and widened and made statutory; and, for the first time, the introduction of a statutory entitlement to a cold weather payment. Each of the three tiers of help has been increased by the Government because we are absolutely determined that the vulnerable groups shall have the confidence to keep warm in this weather. That is also why, in these special circumstances of unprecedented cold weather, I have made the announcement today, before the trigger point has been reached, so that people may have the confidence to keep warm.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be warmly welcomed by many of my constituents, not least those who live in outlying rural areas who frequently experience much lower temperatures than the trigger or monitoring point for Strathclyde region? While I very much welcome what he has done, can he give any hope that we can, without cumbersome buraucracy, find ways of accommodating people in outlying rural areas, who frequently experience lower temperatures?

I think I demonstrated a flexibility in the last few moments that my hon. Friend might not have anticipated. We share the concern. That is why I made the statement. Since my hon. Friend's constituents will be paticularly concerned about this, I should add that it will be widely advertised over the next few days, not least, I trust, by the media, who have shown some interest in the matter.

Is the Minister aware that although what he has announced is some small relief, there are still many pensioners who are not eligible to claim it? Moreover, does not the scheme as it operates at the moment help only those with less than £500 capital and those on certain categories of supplementary benefit? Does the Minister not recognise that there are many elderly people on small incomes, not claiming supplementary benefit, but perhaps just a bit above the limit, who will not get any help? Is it not also disgraceful that from next year all heating additions are to be abolished, including even this scheme which has been triggered?

The hon. Gentleman is being typically mealy-mouthed. I invite him to recollect that heating additions, which amount to over £400 million a year, have been widened and extended and made a statutory entitlement under this Government, and that during the period of Labour Governments there was no statutory entitlement to exceptionally severe cold weather payments. The winters in those days were equally cold and the hon. Gentleman's conscience is a very late arrival.

Does my hon. Friend accept that his news today will be welcomed, but that some of us are still concerned that the formula which is part of the system at present may cause him difficulty? Will he keep an open mind in considering the system itself in future?

My mind on flexibility concerning regulations is ever open.

of course, the Minister is right when he says that vulnerable groups should know where they stand. Is it not the case that during the last 72 hours of bitterly cold weather, until he made his announcement a few moments ago these vulnerable groups did not know where they stood? Could this not go on for several weeks throughout the winter? Are we to have the Minister coming to the Dispatch Box perhaps once a week to indicate whether in that week people will get the £5 addition? Is that not a mean amount, considering the cold that people have suffered, particularly in the remote areas where transport costs mean that the additional expenditure of this week will be far more than £5 will cover?

The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the basic method of assisting vulnerable groups with heating costs. The essential assistance comes, first, in the supplementary benefit rates and, secondly, in the specific heating additions which we have extended, widened and made a regular weekly entitlement for 52 weeks of the year for vulnerable groups. That is what is expected to meet their heating bills. When the weather is unexpectedly severe, this Government, for the first time, have made available special extra help to underpin and help pay the bills that will subsequently come in. The hon. Gentleman should welcome that.

Is it not the case that the Conservative party first introduced this payment and that therefore by their bleatings the Labour party is shedding mere crocodile tears, otherwise it would have taken steps when it had the power to do so?

I think that the main concern of my hon. Friend and of everyone on the Conservative Benches is to ensure that the elderly and the vulnerable are protected by having adequate heating. My hon. Friend has made a perfectly fair and valid political point. We have acted to help with heating costs. When the Labour party was in power, it did not do so.

Now that the Minister has been forced by the sheer logic of events to jettison one of the main regulations with regard to the heating allowance, is it not sensible that he should look at the other petty regulations that were outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) in relation to the amount of capital a recipient can have in the bank, money probably set aside for the recipient's funeral?

I have not jettisoned the regulations. I have told the House that I expect that the regulations will be triggered and, to avoid uncertainty about vulnerable groups, I have made the statement at a very early stage. In relation to the hon. Gentleman's point about the £500 qualifying capital limit, that is not novel to this benefit. I remind him that during the period of the Labour Government the figure was £200, and that only at the very end of their term in office was it £300.

The measure announced by my hon. Friend is to be welcomed. In addition, will he give attention to home improvement, and in particular home insulation? On the face of it, he is subsiding heat loss through uninsulated roofs and pipes. In a quieter moment, will he get together with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and work out a scheme to replace the revenue lost with longer-term capital improvements?

Such discussions are already in hand. My hon. Friend gives me an adequate and welcome opportunity to mention and praise the work of the neighbourhood energy action groups, which have provided 360 local home insulation projects, 6,000 voluntary workers and a substantial amount of insulation for the homes of people who are especially needy. People who may perhaps need information about that may call the free telephone number 0800 234 8000.

Does not the Minister's statement show that the trigger of minus 1·5 deg C was wrongly set at an absurdly low figure? Why is he not withdrawing the scheme altogether? Is he aware that payment of £5 for one week only in no way comes near to meeting need after the worst January weather on record? Is he further aware that if pensions had been increased in line with earnings, as they were under the previous Labour Government, the single pension today would be £8 a week higher and the married pension £12 a week higher, and there would be no need for bureaucratic and cumbersome schemes such as this, which are first on and then off, because of their sheer inhumanity? Will he say that he will pay £5 a week automatically, as of right, for every week during this winter, as the Labour party proposes?

My statement reveals precisely what I have said, that I expect that a trigger point will be reached this week and people may now plan in that confident expectation. I will review the position again at the beginning of next week. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's other remarks, he may say what he likes about previous pension provision. He should bear in mind that if he continues to promote programmes to spend something like £28 billion a year while raising £3·6 billion through taxation. he will not meet those programmes.

I welcome the Minister's sensible announcement, which is the right announcement to make. However, as this entire scheme has become something of an annual shambles, will he consider two factors? First, will he consider changing the trigger degree to zero rather than minus 1·5 deg C? Secondly, instead of having to make special statements such as the one he has made today, will he make automatic payment to all those in the qualifying categories so that people do not have to make special application?

There is already automatic payment for assistance with heating. It is the heating additions to which I have made frequent reference in the past. I make no secret of the fact that there have been difficulties with the discretionary scheme. It was precisely for that reason that we made it a statutory entitlement.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases have occurred in the last 12 months for which figures are available of patients in acute pain being refused admittance to National Health Service hospitals.

It is for the responsible doctor to decide whether, in his clinical judgment, a patient needs to be admitted to hospital. Statistics are not kept on patients who, in the doctor's clinical judgment, do not require admission, but 50 per cent. of patients judged to need admission are admitted immediately.

Does the Minister not understand that that is a pathetic failure to answer a perfectly reasonable question? Is it not right to say that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are awaiting treatment in our hospitals—8,000 of whom in Leicestershire are awaiting in-patient treatment and 15,000 awaiting out-patient treatment—and that the Government are proposing to allocate only £50 million, spread over two years, to meet this need? That is an election gimmick. What do the Government intend to do to provide adequate hospital treatment for people who are in acute need?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at my answer, he will see that it was a perfectly sensible answer to his rather obscure question. On his basic point, the £50 million waiting list fund—from which I hope it will be possible to provide some help to the Leicestershire district health authority, but that will depend on our discussions with the region—will be in support of the effective efforts that authorities are already making; for example, their plans to bring additional theatres into use.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many people who suffer acute pain for many years, whether it be from varicose veins or other problems, who would be better served if money were spent on helping them instead of it being spent on much of the transplant surgery of today, in which surgeons are more inclined to be concerned with their own reputations and macho image? Would it not be better for that money to be spent helping those who are in pain rather than just upon transplant surgery? Should there not be a separate budget instead of money often being wasted on improving surgeons' reputations?

One of the difficulties that faces all Health Ministers is that of drawing a balance in all health authorities between the different considerations to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Does the Minister agree that doctors are there to treat patients; in particular, patients who are in acute pain? Will he stop the practice whereby doctors spend a considerable proportion of their time, not on treating the sick, but on telephoning other National Health Service hospitals to find out whether they can admit their patients?

I have already said that we regard it as important to reduce waiting lists and times. I believe that there are both administrative and other actions that can help towards that end, which we are trying to encourage.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps the Government have taken to help ease hospital waiting lists.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any new plans to reduce hospital waiting lists.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress in the reduction of hospital waiting lists.

Health authorities share the Government's commitment to make further substantial improvements in waiting lists and times. They have developed and are now implementing urgent programmes of action. They will be greatly helped in this by the £50 million waiting list fund.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he recognise that one of the features of medical treatment in the National Health Service that causes the greatest irritation to patients is the length of time that they often have to wait in doctors' surgeries? Has any review of practices within the National Health Service included advice to help to overcome this problem?

Yes, there is irritation, although my impression is that in recent years, the position has improved quite substantially. However, waiting time is certainly one of the problems that we want to deal with.

Does the Minister appreciate that, due to the present weather conditions, there will be severe pressure on hospital services? Does he further appreciate that in certain areas this pressure now extends into spring and mid-autumn—Mid Glamorgan is a case in point? Does the Minister recognise that, ultimately, it is a matter of inadequate funding? It is becoming more apparent every day that the NHS is not safe in the hands of this Government?

I do not remotely accept that. The fact is that under this Government more patients—in-patients, day patients and out-patients—are being treated than at any time in the history of the Health Service. That shows the Government's commitment to the NHS.

Is it not true that one way in which the Government have been able to reduce NHS waiting lists is by forcing health authorities to place their patients in private hospitals paid for by the NHS? If the money is available, why is it not spent on doing up Health Service buildings and ensuring that there are a sufficient number of consultants to carry out operations within the NHS?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. There have been contracts with the private sector and with voluntary hospitals since the inception of the National Health Service, and those contracts were operating under the Labour Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a permanent solution to the waiting lists of the East Birmingham hospital is the earliest possible commissioning of the district general hospital at Solihull?

I think that that will make a substantial contribution to east Birmingham and Birmingham as a whole. The go-ahead for the Solihull hospital has been welcomed locally.

Will the Secretary of State hold an inquiry into the closure of acute beds and the effect on waiting lists? Is he aware that one of the quickest ways of securing savings in this fiscal year is to close acute beds? All the hospitals of North-West Thames authority have been engaged in this process. Will he examine this?

No, Sir, I will not hold an inquiry. The fact is that between 1974 and 1979 the average number of available beds fell by some 7,000 a year, but now, under this Government, that fall, on average, is about 6,000 a year. On the basis of the measures quoted by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), the position was considerably worse under the Labour Government.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the lengths of orthopaedic waiting lists are especially worrying? Therefore, will he have a special word with the profession, in particular the consultants, to ensure that they fully honour their commitment to the NHS? That would reduce orthopaedic waiting lists. Certainly in the Macclesfield area the list is unacceptably high at present.

My hon. Friend is substantially right in what he has said about the worrying nature of those waiting lists. I believe that our consultants are certainly committed in wanting to reduce waiting lists. I further believe that the new initiative, the £50 million waiting list fund, will make a further contribution to reducing those lists.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the cut of 36,000 NHS beds under this Government has already caused a substantial lengthening of waiting lists and leaves no reserve for absorbing the influx of elderly people because of the extreme cold at this time of the year? Is the Secretary of State aware that hospitals in London and the south-east are already turning away serious operation cases because they cannot cope with the number of elderly people being admitted with hypothermia, broncho-pneumonia, heart attacks or strokes? Does he realise that, because of the Government's policy of cuts, it now means that the NHS simply cannot cope with epidemics or health crises such as the present one?

I do not accept anything of what the hon. Gentleman has just said. It is a well-known fact that the closure of beds went on at a far faster pace under the Labour Government than under this Government. The Labour Government closed a record number of beds per year. Under that Government the NHS treated fewer patients, and when they handed over to us the NHS had the biggest and longest waiting list in its history.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the funding of the Trent regional health authority; and if he will make a statement.

We have received many representations about the funding of the Trent regional health authority. Trent is one of the regions that has received priority for funds, and I am glad to tell the House that this year—1987–88—it will be receiving £926 million, which represents a very substantial increase indeed.

If one takes the resource allocation working party target as being 100 per cent., which is what it always is, is it not a fact that the Trent regional health authority is the lowest-funded authority in the United Kingdom, and that many regional health authorities in the south receive as much as 12 per cent. more and as much as 8 per cent. above the target? That means that the great city of Sheffield falls below that target of 100 per cent. by at least £6 million. As a result, hospital waiting lists throughout the area, which the Minister herself lives in, are increasing because of under-funding. She should be fighting for more money to help the situation.

On the contrary, the amount of money allocated to Sheffield has increased from £122 million to £153 million, and waiting lists in the area are being tackled very effectively, with a number of new sessions and consultants. I am satisfied that Sheffield is getting what it should get this year and is making very good use of that money.

asked the Prime Minister if she will place in the Library a copy of all correspondence conducted on her behalf between Sir Robert Armstrong and Mr. Chapman Pincher.

It remains inappropriate to comment on matters in issue in the Peter Wright case in Australia. I also intend to follow the precedent set by previous Governments of not commenting on security matters.

By what method did a Government agency first obtain the page proofs of "Their Trade is Treachery"? This is not exactly related to the current case.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is covered by my first reply.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for constantly parading his political obsessions before us? Does she agree that they may account for the current standing in public opinion of the Labour party and its leader?

I am very grateful for the fact that I am not responsible for the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Now that the Cabinet documents for 1956 have been published and are, therefore, no longer covered by any matter relating to immediate security, and now that it is clear that there was collusion then with the Israeli Government, and that—

Order. This is not an open question. The question on the Order Paper is specifically about correspondence conducted between Sir Robert Armstrong and Mr. Chapman Pincher.

But with great respect, Mr. Speaker, one of the points referred to by Mr. Peter Wright in the book that is being suppressed is the attempt by MI6 to assassinate Colonel Nasser.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 January.

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

Will the Prime Minister find time today to initiate a proper and long-term review of severe weather payments? Will she look, in particular, at the £500 limit? Does she favour thrift, or does she not?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, severe weather payments were brought in under this Government. They are paid on top of the heating addition allowance, which amounts to some £400 million a year, compared with £90 million under the previous Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the statement made earlier today by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security:

"It is our firm expectation that the trigger point for severe weather payments will be reached throughout the country this week. In view of this and of the unprecedented cold weather, I wish to make it clear today that the extra payment of £5 will be made to everyone in the qualifying groups for this week."

Will my right hon. Friend take time during the course of her busy day to look at much of the press comment about the takeover bid by BTR for Pilkington? Will she bear in mind, especially in the light of the arguments about the north-south divide, the importance of Pilkington to the north-west region and have words today with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and urge him to refer that takeover bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

As my hon. Friend said, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who must wait to receive advice from the Director General of Fair Trading.

The announcement by the Minister earlier today on severe weather payments was welcome, but an admission of the—[Interruption.] We are glad to get anything we can for old people who are cold. The announcement was welcome, but was an admission of the utter incompetence of the present system offered by the Prime Minister. Does she recognise that that is a hopelessly inadequate way of trying to remove the gross deficiencies of a pathetically bad system and one recognised as such by organisations representing old people as well as by the old themselves? Must we wait for weekly announcements from Ministers so that the old and the cold can live without fear of freezing? Why does the Prime Minister not scrap the present absurdly bureaucratic and inadequate system and introduce one that provides secure and consistent help to those most in need and which responds to the realities of age, cold, and a deep fear of paying bills?

First, there was no system of severe weather payments under the Labour Government. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman expects a better standard of care from Conservative Governments than his own could possibly have given.

"The proposals submitted to us represent a significant improvement on the previous scheme for exceptionally severe weather payments, in terms of simplicity, comprehensibility and certainty of payment."

Order.

Hon. Members do not wish to hear the truth of what has happened. Yes, we were anxious to waive the bureaucracy. As my hon. Friend the Minister said:

"I wish to make it clear today that the extra payment of £5 will be made to everyone in the qualifying groups for this week… The Government are determined that vulnerable groups should know without delay where they stand, so that they will not be discouraged from heating their homes during this very cold spell."

The people at risk, of whom there are many thousands, do not want a distorted history lesson from the Prime Minister. They want help with their heating and all her recitations from Committee minutes do not fill any bellies or warm any homes. Will the Prime Minister answer my question? Are we to wait for weekly announcements of adjustments in an incompetent policy, or will she get rid of her stupid system?

I have two further points in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. The last time that we had extremely severe weather was in 1978–79, and the heating additions then were £90 million. Today they are £400 million. At that time the Labour Government were in office and not one right hon. or hon. Gentleman raised the matter at Question Time with his own Government. Furthermore, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the other danger to the elderly of having insufficient heat was during the coal strike, which he supported.

Will the Prime Minister now—[Interruption.]

Order.

Now, Mr. Prime Minister—[Laughter.] I am anticipating events. Will the Prime Minister now answer the question? Must we wait for a weekly announcement, or will the right hon. Lady help old people directly and consistently? Does she not recall that last year she defended that incompetent system? This year she is defending this mess. How many additional old people must die before she changes her policy?

The comparison is as follows: under the Labour Government £90 million—[Interruption.] I shall say what is happening now. [Interruption.] Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman does not want me to make the comparison. The comparison is heating additions of £90 million a year under a Labour Government with £400 million a year under this Conservative Government; no severe weather payments under that Labour Government, with generous severe weather payments under this Government, with arrangements that have just been modified to ensure that pensioners receive it; and the coal strike under Labour that deprived old people of heat, and resistance to that from a Tory Government.

asked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to York,.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend praise the railway work force in York, which has achieved, both on the administrative and the engineering sides, such solid benefits? Furthermore, will she confirm that under the Conservative Government, in real terms, a great deal more investment is going into the railways, amounting to more than £414 million per annum, compared with a derisory £343·5 million per annum under Labour?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government have fully recognised the importance of the railways and since we took office British Rail has invested a total of £3 billion in modernising the railways. We are now seeing the largest ever programme for new trains. In the past three years the Government have approved nearly £1 billion of investment in major railway projects, such as the east coast main line electrification scheme. It is for those in this country to compete for new orders, and it is for British Rail to decide where the contracts are given.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 January.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that in the present appalling weather we should be concerned, not only about the elderly, but about the growing number of homeless young people, of whom there are literally hundreds living rough in London alone, with council housing and private rented housing denied to them? What hope can the Government give to that growing band of homeless youngsters?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are a large number of council houses vacant, including some in London. Some have been vacant for over a year and one would hope that they will soon be used to house those who need them. There are legislative provisions for dealing with homelessness which bear on the duties of local authorities.

Will my right hon. Friend find time in her busy day to congratulate Crosfield Electronics in my constituency on having trebled its turnover from £60 million to nearly £200 million in three years, breaking into Japan with about 35 per cent. of the market, and having 35 per cent. of the European market and 35 per cent. of the American market, won against local competition, for computer-aided technology? Is that not a great achievement?

I know the factory to which my hon. Friend refers. I visited it about a year ago, when my hon. Friend was present. It is an impressive firm with extremely impressive achievements which have been of great benefit to its people and to the whole of Britain. I congratulate the company and wish it well in the future.

Further to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), will the Prime Minister recognise that the charity Crisis at Christmas had a record number of young homeless to deal with this Christmas at its soup kitchens and shelters? If, as the right hon. Lady says, there is housing available in London, will she take the time to go and look at the cardboard city on the south bank, and will she ask her Ministers to take action on the issue, which is a growing scandal?

I join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating the charity Crisis at Christmas, which is helped by an enormous number of people. It ran a very impressive and helpful operation which brought joy to many people. In London about 28,000 homes are empty and 10,000 of them are vacant for more than a year. That has been a problem for several years and from time to time I read out the number of empty houses. Some of them are being done up for new tenants; others seem to have been empty for a very long time.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is imperative that the House has the opportunity to debate the subject of severe weather payments, because thousands of people, including the constitiuents of Conservative Members. are at risk and are desperate to be able to maintain heating in their homes. [Interruption.] There is a crisis of cold in Britain that affects many old and poor people and it is not changed by the announcement that we have heard this afternoon. [Interruption.] This House must attend to that subject and I therefore want to inform you, Mr. Speaker—

Order. I may have lost my voice, but I want to be able to hear what is being said.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that tomorrow the Opposition intend to devote the whole of their Opposition day to debates on the condition of the old and the cold, and the problem of fuel poverty, which will endure much longer than the validity of today's announcement and still leave a basic crisis of poverty and loneliness to be answered. We shall, of course, return quickly to the failure of the Government's eonomic policies. However, anyone who knows of the fear which is now gripping so many thousands of our old people in this country must recognise the primacy of this issue for consideration by this House.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In many parts of the House there will be an appreciation of the topicality of the subject that has been chosen for tomorrow. I should like also to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the indication that there will be a debate on the economy because this House, especially Conservative Members, have a vested interest in that subject being debated as early as possible and in as much depth as possible. Therefore, I undertake to do my best to see that a day is made available.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I simply ask you to contrast the reception that was given to the Leader of the House as against that given to the Leader of the Opposition.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the fact that the Leader of the Opposition simply wants to run away from the economic debate, and should not the House be aware that on 2 December the Opposition were not even here for the debate.—[Interruption.]

Order. That is not a matter for me.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise the fact that this morning the Bracknell Met Office refused to give information about temperatures, on the ground that such information was politically contentious? I understand that the DHSS has a contract with the Met service about supplying information on temperatures. I am sure that you would be concerned as much as we would be if there were to be any suggestion that the DHSS has leant on the Met service to withhold information about temperatures. As it seems from the—

Order. I cannot see that what goes on at the Bracknell Met Office is anything to do with me. It is a matter that could quite legitmately, and perhaps even should, be mentioned in the debate tomorrow.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Member representing Bracknell and the Met Office, I know that a large number of my constituents who serve at the Met Office would deeply resent the remarks that have just been made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and I ask him to withdraw them.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all accept that what the Leader of the Opposition had to say was about an important subject. However, if the House is to be run in a civilised and proper way, a point of order has to be either a proper point of order or it is nothing. It is either a personal statement or a request. What the Leader of the Opposition said was surely not a point of order, in the widest use of the words. Is this House to be run properly or for the use of the Opposition?

Order. As far as I am aware, no subject for tomorrow's debate had been announced in the House, and I think that it was for the general convenience of the House, as the Leader of the House indicated, to know exactly what the subject tomorrow is to be.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not have been better for the Minister, in making his announcement on severe weather payments, instead of relying on a fortuitous question from an Opposition Member, to have made the statement at the end of questions? That would have been fairer to you, Mr. Speaker, and would have allowed all hon. Members with an interest in the elderly to make a contribution.

Order. These are matters that should legitimately be raised tomorrow in the debate, which I now understand is to last a full day. If the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) is fortunate, he can raise that point then.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Because of your loss of voice, I am sorry to ask you to guide the House further. Manifestly, the comment of the Leader of the Opposition was not a point of order. [Interruption.] I am sorry to go on, but this is an important point to do with defending the interests of the House. Having an altercation with people outside Indian restaurants is one thing, but obviously for the Leader of the Opposition having an altercation with the Prime Minister is much more difficult. We understand that. However, he should not use a bogus point of order as an excuse to continue a debate. Since the Opposition's humbug on this issue has been shown as a result of the Government's announcement, should not a change of business be announced through the usual channels by the Leader of the House?

Order. Let me clear this matter. Before we adjourned for the Christmas recess, no subject for the Opposition day had been announced. As far as I am aware, since I do not receive party Whips, no subject has yet been announced. I think that it was for the general convenience of the House to know—[Interruption.] Order. The House has to know in some way or another. The only way in which it can be told is if the subject is announced by a member of the Opposition. It was perfectly legitimate to do that.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to try to clarify the issue, is it not a fact that during this Session and the previous Session the Leader of the House, on more than one occasion, has introduced a business statement under the guise of a point of order and it has been accepted by you?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern about my health. However, my eyesight is fine, my hearing is fine and my memory is very good.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you opened the proceedings this afternoon you said something similar to what you have just repeated—that you had trouble with your voice, but that your eyes were sharp. May we all be assured that you have had a good look at those who have taken advantage of your voice this afternoon?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I have dealt with one point of order from the hon. Gentleman. If he has another, I shall take it, but not if it deals with the same subject.

The Library cannot advise me who is ministerially responsible for the Met Office. If we wish to obtain information about temperatures, will the Table Office accept questions that the Met Office in Bracknell is apparently refusing to answer if they are made to the Department of the Environment, which is the Met Office's best guess as to who is the Minister responsible?

I suggest that the hon. Member tries that out on the Table Office. I am sure that he will be given good advice.