To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many calls have been made to the Winter Warmth line; and what publicity has been provided pointing to its existence.

To the end of January there had been approximately 5,000 calls to the Winter Warmth line. The publicity organised by the Department has included the preparation of two short public information films for television, and material for radio broadcasts. We are also placing advertisements in national and selected regional newspapers, and in magazines for elderly people.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he confirm that Help the Aged and Age Concern are fully supportive of the Government's initiative and are backing it; and can he tell me whether the information that is to be provided through the programmes will include information about entitlement to assistance under the severe weather payments scheme?

Certainly Age Concern and Help the Aged have played a major part in the establishment and operation of the line. I think that it is a major and important example of co-operation between voluntary effort and expertise and public resources.

Does the Minister agree that it would be better to increase pensions than to have the means test, which still applies when people have to apply for Winter Warmth?

If the hon. Gentleman is talking about exceptional cold weather payments, they are targeted on those people who need particular help. It would be an extremely wasteful use of public resources to provide such help for all pensioners rather than for those who need it most.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultation he has had with Mencap in regard to severely disabled claimants who will have a reduced entitlement in April.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultation his Department has had with the Disablement Income Group concerning the effect on severely disabled people of reducing the entitlements of those applying for benefit after April.

I have had a number of informal, confidential talks with a variety of organisations. As a result of these talks we intend setting up a special fund in co-operation with the Disablement Income Group and DIG (Scotland). This fund will make payments to those very severely disabled people who need extensive help to enable them to live independently.

In view of the growing concern over the difficulties that mentally handicapped people experience in transferring from hospital care to the community, of which the Minister will be aware, what steps does he propose to take to ensure that the provisions, that are to come into force in April will not jeopardise such transfers?

People leaving institutions to come into the community after April will be entitled, through income support, to community care grants under the social fund as well as to the allowances and premiums to which they would be entitled under the new pattern of income support.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on accepting the need to provide resources for the small but important group of severely disabled people who will be affected after April when the new scheme is brought in, but how many severely disabled people does he expect to be looked after by that fund, and why was it decided not to use the DHSS social fund to provide those resources?

We are looking at the criteria that we should apply to establish the size of the group. We are talking of hundreds, rather than thousands, of disabled people, and we shall be seeking to meet their needs in as flexible a way as possible.

Is the Minister aware that I am disappointed with his response to our representations, because severely disabled people, like other disabled people, are entitled to statutory benefits administered and monitored by the Government? Will he think again? How can he guarantee equality of payments to those people?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman understands the background. When we have Sir Roy Griffiths' report into community care and the results of the survey of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, we shall be able to take a coherent look at the needs of disabled people right across the board. Obviously the needs of this group can be considered within that review and survey, but, in the meantime, we were faced with this particular problem, and this is a sensible, flexible and overwhelmingly fair way of meeting the need.

The Government are to be congratulated on setting up this new flexible special fund in co-operation with the voluntary sector, and they have a good record of spending on the long-term sick and disabled, but will my hon. Friend confirm that what he is giving away with the one hand he will not take away with the other with a reduction in targeted benefits?

These matters have to be considered in due time, but this money is over and above the £60 million to which we are already committed for the long-term sick and disabled in the income support system. This will be extra money to meet this special need while we look at the overall needs of disabled people.

Is not this interim step the privatisation of a facility that was previously available under social security legislation? Did Mencap or the Spastics Society support the proposal? How much money is being made available, and is it cash-limited?

I cannot say at the moment what the amount will be, because it will depend upon our assessment of the group, but I am confident that sufficient funds will be available to meet the needs of this particular group. Officials and I had confidential discussions with a number of organisations, which I do not think the House would expect me to reveal. This is a comparatively small group of people with needs which must be met flexibly over a comparatively short period of time, and the expertise of the Disablement Income Group in managing the scheme for us will be of inestimable value.

Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the most interesting features of the fund that he has announced is its flexibility? It will allow the most effective help to be given to this small group of handicapped people.

That is right. It will be handled by the Disablement Income Group, which will bring its expertise to bear on the matter, and there will be flexibility and uniformity across the country. That would have been difficult to secure if decisions about that small group of people had been made in individual social security offices.

Should not the Minister say how much money will be available, and what will happen when the money runs out? Is he aware that DIG estimates that we are talking about thousands, not hundreds of severely disabled people? If the scheme cannot be in operation by 1 April, what steps will be taken to ensure that no severely disabled person is forced into an institution before it is introduced? Again, will the scheme merely replace the domestic assistance allowance, loss of which will cost severely disabled people up to £50 per week in April? If payments are to be removed from the social security system, will not the removal of disabled people's basic statutory rights be seen as an abdication of the Government's responsibilities?

I do not agree, for the reasons that I have already outlined. We are talking about a small group of people whose needs must be considered flexibly over a comparatively short period of time. There is no long-term intention to remove the allowance from statutory provision.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to review the hitherto unimplemented recommendations of the 1979 report of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

While the Royal Commission report remains a valuable survey of the Health Service, I do not consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to be a productive way of moving forward the current debate on health issues.

Did not recommendation 112 of the 1979 Royal Commission on the National Health Service say that there was a firm case for a gradual but complete extinction of charges? Have not the Government done exactly the opposite? Have not the new eye test charges and higher dental charges been overwhelmingly condemned? Is not the policy of the Government that of tax cuts for the rich, paid for by making charges on the sick?

The answer is no. The reason why we have not accepted the Royal Commission's recommendation is that we do not agree with it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 1946 constitution of the National Health Service is becoming increasingly difficult to fund because of the explosive demands of new technology and new courses of treatment? When he examines these recommendations, will my right hon. Friend make explicit what doctors already know—that we must allocate priorities in the National Health Service and keep it open to all, but narrower in its scope?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's constructive comments, which echo much of the general comment of the Royal Commission, to which the original question referred. Our resource management initiatives are directed to the point that my hon. Friend has in mind.

As a former member of the Royal Commission—the only such hon. Member—I should tell the Government that they would not be in the mess that they are in now with the National Health Service if they had implemented the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Does the Minister agree that the numbers of late abortions would have been considerably reduced if he had implemented the recommendation of the Royal Commission, that 75 per cent.—rather than the present figure of 46 per cent.—of abortions on resident women in Britain should be carried out by the National Health Service?

I simply do not accept the general presumption of the hon. Lady's supplementary question, which is that a good deal of progress has not been made on the general recommendations of the Royal Commission. Great progress has been made in streamlining the administrative structure, by cutting out a tier, and in the development of services such as cancer screening and a number of other important developments.

The Royal Commission referred to the use of hospital beds. Does my right hon. Friend realise how many hospital beds are being wasted because patients are admitted for operations a full day or more before their operations are carried out, principally to ensure that they do not eat anything? In view of the length of waiting lists, can action be taken in appropriate cases to ask patients to certify that they have not eaten anything?

I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. He will be aware that there have been considerable improvements in the efficient use of beds. The performance indicators that we publish—a new set is due shortly—will facilitate comparisons between the performances of different health authorities.

Will the Government withdraw their plans to charge patients for screening examinations of their eyes, teeth and mouths? Why do the Government persist in thinking that they are right to press ahead with those plans, when everyone else, including family practitioner committees, the British Medical Association, health authorities and consumer associations think that the Government are wrong?

Because we believe that these proposals are a reasonable way of contributing a relatively modest sum to the much larger increase in expenditure that we plan on family practitioner services generally, with the emphasis on preventive care.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most telling points of the Royal Commission's report was that the demand for resources in 1979 was so great that we could quite easily have spent the whole of our gross national product on the Health Service?

Yes, indeed. As I said a moment ago, the Royal Commission made some sensible comments about the relationship between demand and resources. It is in that spirit that we have been seeking to tackle the problems of the Health Service.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in the Government's consideration of the National Health Service; and when he now expects to bring forward proposals for consultation.

The Government have now embarked on an internal review of the National Health Service. We shall bring forward our proposals in due course.

Why does the Secretary of State not admit that the Government's real purpose is to prepare the ground for the private sector to take over much of the National Health Service? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British public certainly do not require impertinent lectures from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), about paying for health care? People pay through their taxes and national insurance contributions, and they expect the National Health Service to be adequately funded by whichever party happens to be in government.

The British public will share my admiration of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the sensible way in which she addressed the nation about the issues and values that face a free society which, by choice, spends £17 billion on alcohol.

May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that many thousands of people are aware from their own personal experience that today the Health Service is treating and curing people who only two or three years ago would have been sent home to die? When my right hon. Friend considers long-term plans, may I suggest to him that the vast majority of people in Britain are willing to pay more money for health services and care, provided that whatever schemes are adopted—and there are many— the money goes to the Health Service and not to the general exchequer?

My hon. Friend is quite right. That is why we must look so carefully at the way in which resources are used. We must ensure that they are spent on patient care, and not wasted. My hon. Friend was right to identify something that should unite both sides of the House. It is extraordinary that in the past year about 32 million of our citizens have used hospital services in Britain. That is an astonishing example of the achievement, for which we should give credit to all those who work in the Health Service.

Has the Secretary of State's review made him aware that a more efficient use of resources, such as operating theatres and beds, will require an increase in resources? Therefore, will he guarantee to make more funds available so that we can utilise beds and operating theatres more efficiently?

We will consider everything. Obviously we shall consider the way in which increased efficiency improves the ways in which the Health Service can treat more patients. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience in Scotland, where a greater percentage of GDP resources has been expended on health care, that has not improved the relative ratios of waiting times compared with England. Therefore, it is a matter, not simply of resources, but of the way in which those resources are effectively used in patient care.

There is no question of privatising the NHS, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) implied, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that there have been many examples of co-operation between the NHS and the private sector, to their mutual advantage? Will his Department collate those examples and circulate them to some of the authorities which, for political or ideological reasons, refuse to use that co-operation for the benefit of patients?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are concerned with patient care, which means co-operation in the use of all the resources that we have. I draw his attention to an excellent article by the King's Fund, which illustrates the way in which the private and public sectors are already working together. We should encourage that because, as I keep saying, our only concern should be patient care, not sterile politics.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what monetary value he places on human life?

If it is pure money that we are talking about, the Secretary of State and the Government place greater value on human life than did the Labour Government when they reduced the proportion of GDP that they spent on health care. However, if we talk in that kind of sterile language, we shall not rationally find a way to improve the health of our country.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his review will not be confined to the role of the NHS alone, but will review the other means of providing health services to our people, including possibly a form of national health insurance scheme?

Like my hon. Friend, who served for many years on the Public Accounts Committee and who has noticed so many times the way in which we do not necessarily use our resources as effectively as we might, I shall ensure that we examine each and every alternative. All alternatives will be considered on their merits so that we can ensure that our prime goal of improving the health of our nation is uppermost in our minds.

Will the Secretary of State now answer the questions that I have put to him twice in writing? What opportunity will there be for the public to join in the review of their Health Service? How will the professional organisations which work in the Health Service get a hearing in the review? Why do Ministers propose to consult us only when they have made up their minds? May we be told even the terms of the review? Does the Secretary of State not appreciate that the NHS belongs to the public and that its future cannot be disposed of in a basement in Downing street, still less in a dining room at the Carlton club?

Perhaps I could draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the answers to the written parliamentary questions that were addressed to his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who asked the question, in which I made it absolutely clear that any submissions brought forward would be considered. It might also be of interest to the hon. Gentleman to discuss this matter with the Trades Union Congress, most of the general secretaries of which came to see me, because again I made it absolutely clear — they obviously have not communicated it to the Opposition Front Bench—that I look forward to any and all submissions from the TUC and from any other reputable body.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the cost of the current year's social security uprating.

We estimate that the benefits uprating which takes effect from April 1988 will add more than £1·3 billion to social security expenditure in 1988–89.

While recognising that the uprating represents the most thorough and substantial review of the social security system ever, and that it will make the system simpler to understand, may I ask my hon. Friend to guarantee and confirm to the House that those most in need will be the people targeted by the reforms, and that families with children will benefit even more than they would have done by a simple uprating of child benefit?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to this simplification of the system, which is important, and to the extra money going to families. The sum of £200 million is going to family credit over and above what is available for family income supplement. Another £100 million is going to families on income support, which compares with the £120 million that it would have cost to uprate child benefit.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that among those losing out will be 100,000 people who will lose housing benefit altogether, 50,000 of whom are pensioners? Six hundred thousand families will also lose out when housing benefit is reviewed downwards in April.

There are some losers from housing benefit, but overall the reforms have produced many more people who gain or suffer no change than people who lose out. The hon. Gentleman makes a mistake to consider housing benefit in isolation.

Will my hon. Friend make sure that in the next uprating the capital limits are reconsidered? The present limit of £6,000 bears hardly on a number of people who have been receiving housing benefit. Can we raise that limit next time to at least £10,000?

The £6,000 limit applies across the range of benefits. It is double the present limit for supplementary benefit. Of course the limits can be reviewed, but that would mean that people who were paying taxes and had no savings would be paying tax to pay benefits to people with more than £6,000 in the bank.

In view of the size of the sums that the Minister has quoted with regard to the uprating, is it not a particularly mean and shoddy trick to cheat pensioners and the disabled out of a fiver a week solely because—often for the convenience of the Department—they have combined payment hooks?

I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood the position. Many people are overcompensated by the compensation being paid for the RPI error. Only a very small number of people are losing because they are entitled to a benefit on both their order books.

I welcome the early part of my hon. Friend's reply, but may I ask what representations he has received about the £8 payment that is being made to all who were underpaid last year? Is he aware of the confusion, concern and anguish that that is causing in many areas?

Some of the confusion arises because people have not understood that on some benefits there has been no loss. Due to the way in which the rounding up is calculated there has been no loss for those on lower rate attendance allowance, invalid care allowance, basic retirement pension for married women on their husband's insurance contribution or on severe disablement allowance. In view of all those, some of the claims are exaggerated.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of gross domestic product the public sector contributes to health in each EEC country.

As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report. The hon. Lady may wish to know, however, that the figures for net public spending on health range from 4·1 per cent. in Greece and Portugal to 6·7 per cent. in France and 6·9 per cent. in Ireland. For the United Kingdom, the equivalent figure for net public spending is 5·2 per cent.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures for public spending and total spending show that Britain spends less as a percentage of GDP than most other developed countries in the world? Does that not give the lie to the Government's pretence that the problem has to do with some sort of insatiable demand for health care? Is not the truth that, for ideological reasons, the Government want to destroy the national health system, which is enormously popular and efficient—in terms of the proportion of money that goes on administration—in order to bring in a private health system? They are running down the system when they could well afford to increase expenditure and get rid of the present problems.

If there were any truth in the hon. Lady's absurdities it would apply to the previous Labour Government, who reduced the percentage of GDP dedicated to health from the public sector from 5 to 4·7 per cent. — unlike this Government, who have increased it again, to 5·2 per cent. net.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is not the percentage of gross national product that we spend on health that is important, but the service that the Health Service gives the people of this country? Does he accept that, despite the problem; that we are encountering at the moment, we in the United Kingdom possess the best National Health Service in the modern world? Will he ensure that in the inquiry being carried out by the Government all alternatives to current funding and all alternatives to make the present system more efficient will be considered, and not held to be out of court?

My hon. Friend can be reassured that I will certainly look at the alternatives and that I am concerned to make sure that we do not get trapped into simplicities such as the percentage of GDP. My hon. Friend will know, as others who ask such questions may not, that, for example, the nation with the lowest percentage of GDP spent on health, Greece, also happens to have the highest male life expectancy rate, whereas the nation with the highest percentage of GDP spent on health, Ireland, probably has the lowest male life expectancy rate That is a statistical illustration of the fallacy of GDP extrapolations.

Does not the protest campaign announced today by the Royal College of Nursing underline the verdict of every test of public opinion, which is that the vast majority of people want available funds to be spent on improving the NHS and not frittered away on tax cuts for the well off? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, instead of a phoney review of the NHS, the Prime Minister would be better employed finding the money urgently to avoid cuts in the Health Service this year?

What all this illustrates is the fact that the Opposition are desperate to find ways of spending the Conservative economic success, which has underlain the achievements of this Government. The Government have massively increased funding to the Health Service, as opposed to the reductions under the Labour Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, speaking in round terms, the average of national spending on health in the leading OECD countries is about 9 per cent. compared with about 6 per cent. in this country? The difference is that those countries take into consideration the whole of national spending on health, rather than just Government spending. The message of those figures is that we must look again extremely carefully at how we can find the additional spending on health that the country clearly needs.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In our main competitor countries an average of about 2 per cent. of funding is provided by the private sector, as opposed to the 0.5 per cent. of private sector funding in this country. It is clear that the overseas private sector makes a far greater contribution to health care, and that is the key distinction illustrated by the national figures.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what protection he intends to give disabled claimants who will have a reduced entitlement in April.

Existing disabled claimants will not have a reduced entitlement, because they will receive transitional protection at the point of change. As I have already announced to the House, for new claimants we intend setting up a special fund in co-operation with the Disablement Income Group.

In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) the Minister said that he had received advice from the Disablement Income Group, and he spoke of hundreds of recipients and beneficiaries. Does the Minister realise that the Disablement Income Group is talking, not about hundreds, but about thousands? Will that fund be sufficient for those thousands of people? Will he consult the Disablement Income Group again? What is he doing to monitor the situation to make sure that those people are fully reimbursed?

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the Disablement Income Group and the Disability Alliance. That is the group that made the statement about thousands being affected. I do not know how that group got that figure. Certainly, given the representations that I have received since we announced the system for income support and the identification of the needs of disabled claimants across the board, we have been talking about hundreds rather than thousands.

I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that there are anxieties among the professionals at anything that starts to rebuild demarcation lines between people who are regarded as severely disabled and those who are regarded as disabled. Can he give us an assurance that, in considering the ways in which the various schemes work, he will take such anxieties into account?

I ask my hon. Friend to await the reports from the OPCS and Sir Roy Griffiths and our subsequent conclusions from the results of those surveys. I certainly believe that demarcation disputes do not always serve a suitable purpose, but we shall be subsuming all that in our considerations of the overall needs of disabled people.

If the Minister does not know how the Disablement Income Group and the Disability Alliance came to work out that thousands of people were likely to suffer as a result of the Government's policy from 1 April, why does he not ask them, in view of the fact that he is asking them to administer the fund? Can he not tell the House how much in pounds and pence he will make available to the groups to administer?

As I have said to the House, I am confident that sufficient funds will be available to cover the needs of the group. There is a distinction between absolutely every disabled person who received any sort of additional requirement under supplementary benefit and the group which has been identified, which is those severely disabled people who need help to maintain their independence in the community and not have to go into institutional care. That is the group which I believe amounts to hundreds, rather than thousands.

Why do the Government not amend the Social Security Bill, which is now in another place, as proposed by the Disablement Income Group, in the terms of the amendment it has drafted to the Bill, to deal statutorily with this very pressing and deeply serious problem for severely disabled people?

Because the whole purpose of moving to income support—that is, allowances and premiums—to meet needs was to simplify the system and get away from the very complicated system of additional requirements which flowed from the supplementary benefits system. We want to move away from that, but we recognise that there is a short-term gap, which is being met flexibly with the help of the Disablement Income Group.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received concerning the implementation of the new social security regime under the Social Security Act 1986 in April.

Implementation of the new schemes is generally well advanced, and we continue to receive a variety of representations.

Is the Minister aware of the considerable additional work load that is placed on DHSS employees in local offices in trying to cope with the change? Is he aware that some staff have been working successive weekends for weeks on end? What proposals does he have to bring additional staff to the offices to make sure that the public do not suffer as a result of the changes?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his supplementary question because it gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the staff in local offices who, as the hon. Gentleman says, have been working extremely hard and have the conversion to income support well on track. We have recruited some 9,000 extra staff over the past two years, and additional staff were taken on precisely for the conversion.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the general public demand a welfare state system that is selective, not universal? Does he also agree that that is exactly what the Conservative Government are doing—targeting help to those in genuine need? What is wrong with that? Is it not right that that is the way we should carry on?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on the main issue of the debate. The Government continue to maintain two sorts of benefits — income-related, and universal, such as child benefit. The two sets of benefits have their place in the system.

Does the Minister recognise that there must be very severe hardship in those local offices which have received allocations from the social fund for next year which are less than half their expenditure on single payments for last year? Can he come up with a better explanation of why those offices are concentrated in areas of deprivation such as Glasgow, Leeds and Bathgate, and why the offices which do best are those such as Epsom, Tunbridge Wells and Bognor Regis? Can there be any possible explanation for the ludicrous misallocation, other than naked political bias?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the social fund budget is £210 million, compared with the £190 million being spent this year on single payments. I placed in the Library for the perusal of the hon. Gentleman the method by which this had been calculated. When we last debated the issue, I was not entirely sure that he had read it.

if low-income families have to budget, why should not those on supplementary income benefits have to do exactly the same?

The very important consideration in the reforms is that we are giving people on low incomes a sum of money from which they can budget. We are doing away with all the little additions under the supplementary benefit system and are dealing with people by groups, who receive premiums. We think it right that they should manage, but with help from the social fund.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he takes to monitor the effect of National Health Service charges for dental treatment on dental health in Great Britain; and if he will make regular reports on this to the House.

We conduct dental health surveys of adults and children periodically and the results are reported to the House. The latest one is about to start. The general household survey also monitors dental health every year. The nation's dental health has shown dramatic improvements in recent years and there is no evidence that charges will reverse that trend.

Is the Minister aware that the Staffordshire local dental committee has written to me expressing its grave concern that those great advances in dental treatment to which she referred may now be jeopardised because of the policy of imposing charges? Will she tell the House how many similar representations she has received from other dental committees in favour of and against her proposals to charge for what was free dental care?

I am sure that the Staffordshire local dental committee, like many others which have made representations to us, would also agree that there are other measures, such as fluoridation of water, which we support and will pay for, and cleaning teeth, which will have considerable benefits for dental health. As a matter of fact, every family in this country buys, on average, a tube of toothpaste every fortnight and they do not appear to be deterred by the price.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I attended the memorial service for Lord Duncan Sandys at St. Margaret's, Westminster. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Is the Prime Minister aware that it is becoming very noticeable that, during the past few months, she has been reading out long, detailed answers whenever my hon. Friends, with the exception of one, ask her questions? When my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks a question, he gets a very short answer, something like, "I have nothing further to add." I have some advice for the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]

Order. Let us have the question.

When the Prime Minister answers questions about the National Health Service, will she give a short reply and allocate another £3 billion, because that is what is needed? When my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow asks his question, perhaps she will give a long, detailed reply.

The hon. Gentleman's questions usually have more content than that. As he wants a reply, although I am not sure whether he wants a short or a long one, and as he mentioned the NHS, may I point out that, covering his constituency, phase one of the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire royal hospital, opened by the Queen in March 1985, provides 500 medical and surgical beds and cost £29 million. I could go on, but I do riot think that the hon. Gentleman would like it if I did.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence is probably even more important than the National Health Service? Does she concur with me in recognising that the Western European Union is the European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance and that it is essential to give the WEU guidelines in its reactivation and tasks ahead? Does she further agree that time is running out, due to the presidential elections and the fact that European defence is in a very poor state at the moment?

As my hon. Friend is aware, we are always anxious for the European members of NATO to play a very full part in the NATO Alliance. The WEU helps in that, but I believe that all its activities should be directed to strengthening the NATO Alliance and the European part in that Alliance. I believe that that is its purpose.

Did the Prime Minister mean it when she said two weeks ago:

"I am delighted that people always want to see me. I am absolutely delighted."?—[Official Report, 26 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 168.]

My concern is quite simply this my concern is very much for the good reputation of this House. [HON. MEMBERS "Frit."] I do not think that television will ever televise this House. If it does televise it, it will televise only a televised House, which would be quite different from the House of Commons as we know it.

For centuries we have had this place reported. The public come into the Gallery and for 10 years we have had the House broadcast. What reasonable cause can be given for not using modern technology—[HON. MEMBERS "You."] What reasonable cause can be given for not reporting and broadcasting this House with moving pictures? What is the Prime Minister afraid of ?

The right hon. Gentleman gives me my point. The reputation of this House has not been enhanced by sound broadcasting.

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern and disgust at those teachers who are on strike in London today, and does she agree with me that such action can only prejudice the education of the children of London?

Yes. There is absolutely no reason for teachers to go on strike today. I find it very difficult to understand how, one day, teachers themselves can be absent from the classroom and the next day castigate children for truancy. One really cannot expect discipline in the classroom unless one demonstrates it oneself.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 9 February.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the announcement made earlier today by the Confederation of Health Service Employees about a national day of action on 14 March in defence of our Health Service? That will be warmly welcomed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of trade unionists who would wish to take part in that day of action, such as the Vauxhall car workers who today voted to strike tomorrow in the north-west in defence of the National Health Service. Why does the Prime Minister not take the pressure out of the situation by getting the Chancellor to announce that the £3,000 million or £4,000 million that he has apparently set aside for tax cuts to the rich will instead be spent on the National Health Service?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is an extra amount allocated to the National Health Service for the coming year of £1,100 million, which is being found by the taxpayer. I am in some little difficulty, as I have the results for both the Coventry district health authority and the Birmingham health authority. As they are both very good, I am not quite sure which I should give. Perhaps I should give the results for Coventry as the hon. Gentleman represents part of Coventry. Capital building: completed: a new sub-regional radio therapy treatment centre£5 million—in 1987, and there is an extra waiting list fund of £272,000. Going over to Birmingham, the record is absolutely superb. Between 1978–79 and 1986–87 health spending in Birmingham—

No one believes a word of it.

What a pity, because they are facts. Health spending has gone up from £122 million to £281 million. That has enabled Birmingham district health authority to employ more than 800 more nurses since 1979.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Ford strike can have only a damaging effect upon jobs and upon exports and will not help that company improve by one iota its productivity, which is already 60 per cent. below similar plants in Germany? Will she reflect upon whether there has been a single time in the last eight years when the Labour party has not supported strike action?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I cannot recall a time when the Opposition condemned strike action. All major strikes are damaging to the economy. The Ford workers have had two ballots and they must be intended to presume the consequence of their own action, on themselves, on other workers here or overseas, and on future inward investment, and to take responsibility for it.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

As the Prime Minister has probably come armed with details of the new hospital to be built in my constituency, may I ask her to add one more detail to her file? The hospital medical committee, consisting of all the senior doctors in the hospital, wrote to me yesterday to say that unless there is an increase in the allocation for the running of the hospital when it opens they will be unable to use many of the operating theatres and the waiting list will grow. Why does the Prime Minister refuse point blank to use even a small part of the money that has been set aside for tax cuts so that the £20 million investment in the hospital in Oldham may be useful economically?

As the hon. Gentleman invited me to give details of capital building, I will. Under construction is the £17·8 million phase 1 redevelopment of Oldham district general hospital, and there is over £250,000 extra this year from the waiting list fund for general surgery, and so on. I find it difficult to take lectures from the hon. Gentleman, whose party treated the Health Service, doctors and nurses shabbily.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 'Tuesday 9 February.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to endorse the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in a speech in which he advocated a return to traditional moral values? Does she agree that that should apply not only to parents and teachers, but to those who hold positions of responsibility, in Church, state and local government.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I read the full speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I thought it was excellent in all respects, as we would all expect. The purpose, as I think is perhaps not fully. [Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister must have an opportunity to answer questions that have been put to her.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The purpose of having religious education as, until now, the only compulsory subject in the curriculum—it goes back to 1944—was to ensure that children were taught what was right and wrong. Strange things have happened to religious education since then. [Interruption.] How very interesting. I am amazed that Opposition Members should poke fun at such an important thing. No wonder some of them would like to get rid of religious education. We on this side believe in upholding it.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall this time last year when, within days of the nurses' pay review award, she agreed to meet it in lull and to fund it in full? I am aware, as is the House, that that was done out of her concern for nurses and the NHS and had nothing at all to do with the impending general election. So that she may confound the cynics who believe otherwise, will she guarantee that this year she will do the same and fund the award in full?

For very good reasons, we have never given that guarantee in advance, any more than the Opposition did over its review bodies, which it overturned frequently when they came up. Our record is very good, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out. When the pay review body reports are in we shall decide precisely what to do with them. He will know that with regard to implementing them, as distinct from funding them, we do implement them in full unless there are strong and compelling reasons not to do so.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Education Reform Bill, which is being considered in Standing Committee, will do much to enhance the quality and standard of state education? Is she aware, however, that a great deal of concern and apprehension are being caused to parents by the black propaganda being circulated by certain irresponsible groups? What advice does she have for parents?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Education Reform Bill is meant to give parents more choice and to enhance the quality and standard of education in all schools in the state system. I suggest to my hon. Friend that we must make more strenuous efforts to get across the great advantages of the Bill, in particular the advantages that it will bring to those who live in the inner cities.