To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement on the results of the implementation of the recent social security changes.

The reforms have helped us to provide extra help for families with children, improve incentives to work, and make the system simpler and easier to understand. Reports from local offices in my Department indicate that the vast majority of cases were reassessed on time, and the new income support scheme is proving easier to administer. On the limited evidence available, the position in most local authorities appears to be similar. We have made it clear that we will continue to monitor the effects of the changes.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. He mentioned the limited information available. I remind him of my prediction on 2 November 1987, at column 687, when I said that there would be hardship and asked for a report in 1988 on the effect of the legislation, bearing in mind that many of our constituents have lost out on housing benefit when they receive a fairly modest private pension. They have also lost out on certain Government training schemes. Therefore, will the Minister not carry out a limited survey, but come back to the House with the real results of the legislation?

As I said, we shall continue to monitor the situation carefully, but the Government reacted very quickly with the substantive changes that were announced on 27 April in areas that were causing clear hardship. 'The changes affect 8·5 million people, and overall they are settling in very successfully.

Does my right hon. Friend agree, and will he give publicity to the fact, that delays in paying family credit are not due to the local DHSS offices, which have to carry most of the flak from people waiting for family credit?

I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point. The initial stages of the introduction of family credit meant that processing the claims took between five and six weeks on average. That has improved: 243,000 family credit claims are now in payment, 72,000 claims are pending, and the aim in future is to clear claims within 18 working days. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that a help desk facility has now been made available for local offices to contact the family credit unit in North Fylde with regard to those who complain of financial hardship while awaiting an award of family credit. My hon. Friend has raised an important point, and I am delighted to be able to make that announcement.

Can the Secretary of State explain why people on industrial injury benefit and invalidity benefit have suffered so severely under these changes? Cuts of £10, £20 and £25 a week have been made in their benefits through loss in housing benefit. What is the reason for that, and what is the Secretary of State doing about it?

I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the changes that were announced on 27 April, which took into account people above the income support level who had not had transitional protection. In most cases, the schemes to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring are discretionary ones implemented by local authorities. The changes have taken account of the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. Such people should be helped by the changes that were announced on 27 April.

In view of the time that it takes for people to receive family credit, does my right hon. Friend agree that local housing authorities should be patient and sensitive about rent arrears caused by an absence of family credit?

My hon. Friend has raised a constituency case with me, but he makes a good general point. Local authorities are required to take notional account of family credit. The five to six-week delay in processing at the start of the scheme has created some difficulties, but we have set up a central unit at North Fylde to assist local offices, and it should help considerably.

In his continued monitoring, will the Secretary of State take account of the fact that the rules, which allow only the offer of loans to the most desperate and destitute, simply add insult to injury? When his officers meet representatives of homeless organisations later this week, will he undertake urgently to review the balance between loans and grants?

No. We will look carefully, as we said we would, at the overall workings of the social fund. I hope that the detailed June figures will be available by the end of this week or the beginning of next week and placed in the Library, but it might be helpful for the hon. Lady and other Opposition Members to be reminded that loans generally are running at above 71 per cent. of the forecast profile and grants are running at about 32 per cent. In other words, the overall expenditure is about 59 per cent. of profile, which is nothing like the appalling suggestions that the Opposition made about the scheme. The overall figures are well within the cash forecast profile.

Does my right hon. Friend nevertheless accept that there are still many cases of genuine hardship? Will he assure the House that the monitoring will be careful? Will he examine most thoroughly the dossier of cases that I am sending him today involving some of my constituents?

Of course. I shall look with pleasure at the cases.

With pleasure!

I look with pleasure on the opportunity that I might have to help an hon. Member who, like Opposition Members, tries to help his constituents. I shall, of course, monitor the situation carefully. I remind the House, however, that 8·5 million people were affected by the most radical changes in social security for 40 years, and, overall, the changes have settled in extremly well.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the number of people likely to qualify for transitional protection payments in respect of housing benefits.

We still estimate that over 300,000 households should qualify for the transitional payments announced by my right hon. Friend on 27 April following the changes in the housing benefit system.

Does the Minister accept that when the Secretary of State told the House on 27 April that people most severely and significantly affected by the housing benefit cuts would benefit from the transitional arrangements, he was guilty of a very cruel con on some of the most vulnerable people in society? Will he confirm that many of the people who are most savagely hit by housing benefit cuts will not and were never meant to be helped by these transitional arrangements? How many people have so far applied for the transitional arrangements, bearing in mind the confusing under-publicity of the scheme? Will he confirm that the calculation made by his Department is that only 10 per cent. of those who apply will be successful? Will he answer these points——

Order. We shall get through very few questions if we have long supplementaries.

I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's third question, because I have no idea who will apply, but I can say that we have received 60,000 applications for transitional payments and that about 4,000 a day are coming in. We aim to have another advertising campaign in the near future to encourage the highest possible take-up of this protection, which, as we said at the time, is designed to limit housing benefit loss to £2·50 a week. It was never designed to protect people from rises in rents or rates which took place on 1 April.

The transitional arrangements not-withstanding, are there not many people who are ostensibly gainers under the new social security regulations who are being turned into losers almost entirely as a result of the necessary contribution of 20 per cent. to the local rates and the imposition of the water rate? I recognise the desirability of all citizens having some interest in local government expenditure, but does my hon. Friend remain satisfied that this is the most equitable way of achieving that?

Water rates were taken into account in the transitional protection. As for rates, £1·30 compensation for the minimum contribution to rates is built into the income support system. I believe that we tackled that problem in a fair and equitable manner.

Will the Minister confirm that it is now 11 weeks since the scheme was announced and that, as yet, not a single claimant has received a refund? Many of them are now running up considerable arrears and facing threats of eviction by local authorities and private landlords. Do the Government not accept some of the responsibility for having got those people into that difficulty?

Those who have had the higher losses will have their transitional protection phased out over a number of years, so there is no question of the scheme being limited to a year. It is a remarkable acheivement that we have been able to set up the new office, employ and train the staff, establish the procedures and advertise all that so that I can say that the first payments will go out before the end of this week. We shall be anxious to achieve the highest possible take-up.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what effect the social security reforms have had on the unemployment and poverty traps.

When family credit replaced family income supplement, about twice as many working families with children became eligible for help and the payments became more generous. Nearly all working families can now be better off in work. We ended the absurd situation in which a person on family income supplement whose pay went could be left worse off than before.

That is an encouraging reply. Is not one of the major but little publicised advantages of the changes of last April the fact that it no longer pays to stay on the dole rather than to take a job? The Government are giving individuals the incentive to take a job. Does that not contrast starkly with the attitude of the Opposition, who clearly believe in blanket benefit and would prefer people to become more, rather than less, dependent on state handouts?

My hon. Friend is right. There are now few families who would be better off out of work than in work. We ended the circumstances in which people could lose more benefit as their pay rose. Under family income supplement a family with three children who earned £75 could be £5·50 a week worse off if their pay rose to £130 a week.

Will the Minister say something about the impact of the loss of income support on self-employed Harris tweed weavers? He will know something about that, because I have written to the Department about it. He will know of the great fear among these people that the loss of income support will act as a disincentive to others to join the Harris tweed industry and become weavers. Will he concede that the industry is unique and requires special measures, and will he undertake to review the impact of the loss of income support upon it?

I shall be happy to consider the hon. Gentleman's letters and reply to them in due course. There is now a clear division between income support, under which the claimant must work 24 hours a week or less, and family credit., under which the claimant will work 24 hours a week or more. That division has simplified the system and is generally advantageous.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the apprentices in the shipyards of Barrow, whose places were formerly funded under the youth training scheme, have been laid off as a result of the industrial dispute and are being denied income support or unemployment benefit of any kind? Will my hon. Friend look into that as a matter of urgency and issue local instructions that unemployment benefit is to be paid?

I cannot do exactly what my hon. Friend wishes, because these are matters for an adjudication officer. If a person is involved in a trade dispute, he is not eligible for unemployment benefit or income support for himself, although payments can be made to his dependants. It is for the adjudication officer to decide whether a person is involved in a trade dispute. I hope that that decision will be reached as expeditiously as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to increase the proportion of revenue from the sale of land belonging to hospitals which goes to district health authorities.

The policy is as set out in the land transactions handbook and by circular. It states that a significant proportion of the proceeds of sale should remain with district health authorities as an incentive for those districts to rationalise and dispose of property. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the total amount realised in England from land sales last year was nearly £190 million.

Is the Minister aware that in the South East Thames region, the higher the sale price the more the region keeps? Therefore, there is an incentive, every time a hospital is sold, to go for the highest price, irrespective of what ends up on the site. Is she particularly aware that in my constituency, St. Olave's hospital in Rotherhithe is out for tender and there is a risk that a hospital set up to cater for the poor will have part of its land sold for housing for the rich, while many hundreds of thousands of poor, who need housing, health and community services, might be sold down the river by the policy of her Department?

The health authority locally has a responsibility to make the best use of its property for health care. I understand that for the St. Olave's site there were proposals for a psychiatric day care centre, physiotherapy, a respite care centre, and so on. As for the way that the money might be used, the hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten that £28 million is being allocated to the Guy's hospital phase 3 rebuilding. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be visiting that site on Friday.

Is it not of the greatest importance in promoting health care that health bodies should use every available penny, whereas the concept that appears to be advanced by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and his party is that we should reduce the amount of money available for health care?

My hon. Friend is right. He might have pointed out that the determined efforts that we have been making recently to dispose of sites has brought a lot more money to the Health Service. I have already said that £190 million was raised last year, and that compares with 10 years ago, when the total receipts on the sales of surplus property were £7 million.

Will the Minister look at the question in relation to proposals for the sale of land and hospitals, such as one in my constituency, which was owned by a charitable trust before being handed over to the NHS? When revenue is raised by such sales, should not a donation be made to the charity?

I believe that that case was the subject of an Adjournment debate that I had with the hon. Gentleman not long ago. If I remember rightly, the charity that he had in mind had something to do with the mining industry. Those issues were settled a long time ago, back in 1948, when the hospitals were handed over to the Health Service. There is nothing more to be said.

Is my hon. Friend aware of a scheme in Bromley, by a private company, to build a new 550-bed hospital, at practically no cash cost to the NHS, in return for land swaps? While not commenting on the merits of that particular case, will she welcome the principle of such a deal and confirm that the rules will not get in the way of it?

The details of the rules are properly a matter for another of my right hon. Friends, but we welcome such deals and look forward to much closer co-operation between the NHS and the private sector, which will benefit everyone concerned.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the cost of the Cleveland child abuse inquiry.

The total cost to central Government of the inquiry into child abuse in Cleveland in 1987 is likely to be around £1·5 million. This includes payments of £300,000 each to the Cleveland county council and to the Northern regional health authority as a contribution towards the costs of those authorities.

The Minister's reply demonstrates that good quality work is not cheap, and meeting the demands of the inquiry and its report will also not be cheap. Many of the authorities are worried that they will not be able to put the necessary resources into protecting children. Can we look forward to a statement from the Government that they will adequately fund local authorities to ensure that every child who is on a child abuse register is properly supervised, so that we may know that the proper resources to meet this frightening problem will be made available?

In my statement last Wednesday I said that we were putting additional targeted resources towards training, which is an essential prerequisite. The hon. Lady's question distracts attention—again, I apologise for repeating something that I said last Wednesday—from the fact that, although the Cleveland crisis caused pressure on resources in Cleveland, it does not follow that a lack of resources created the crisis.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that when we talk of the Cleveland child sex abuse problem we make a mistake, and that it should be south Cleveland? There was no abnormality of numbers in north Cleveland. The abnormality was generated in the area where two stupid doctors used a discredited system to try to enhance their empires. There is absolutely no reason why the Government should put extra funding into that region for that purpose. The Cleveland child sex abuse problem occurred as a result of bad direction by the doctors and bad management by those charged with the responsibility of looking after the children.

I note my hon. Friend's remarks. I have no doubt that they will be taken into account by the Cleveland authorities when considering their response to the report.

Like many hon. Members last week, I am disappointed that the three-year training proposal will not be implemented. I recognise that some resources should go into the area of child abuse, but what steps has the Minister taken to include teachers in that training? It is clear to many people who have studied the Cleveland report, and child abuse generally, that there is a great deal to be gained from training teachers to identify children who are suffering and are at risk.

The grants that I announced last week were principally directed at social workers, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has issued a circular to the education service. I am conscious of the fact that there are training needs elsewhere, which I will discuss with my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Recent tragic events in my constituency have highlighted the fact that some small private children's homes still do not have to be registered or inspected regularly. Bearing in mind everyone's grave concern about the welfare of all our children, and especially those vulnerable children in care, will my right hon. Friend undertake to examine this matter with the greatest possible urgency, with a view to introducing the necessary legislation as quickly as possible?

Yes; I will consider that matter with a view to ascertaining the most appropriate action.

If it is not a lack of resources that is causing the problem in training, what is it? Why has the Minister not explained why he has not accepted the recommendation of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work? Is there not a difference betwen £7 million and £40 million, and why should this be the only country in Europe to have a two-year training programme?

I have explained several times the importance of improving the training, among other things, of existing social workers in that area. I did not regard the CCETSW proposals as the best way to spend that money. We hope to make a number of important improvements in the training of existing as well as future social workers. The right course is a balanced package of that sort.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what increases nurses working in paediatric intensive care in inner London can expect to receive as a result of the 1988 nurses' pay award.

The maximum pay for a staff nurse with post-basic training in paediatric intensive care in inner London is now £12,538, an increase of over £3,000, or more than 31 per cent., above the previous maximum annual salary.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact that he recognises the problems of recruiting specialist skilled nurses in London is very welcome, as are the steps that he has taken? Is he further aware that the problem is one of recruitment, not only in inner London, but in outer London, and that the sooner we can achieve regional pay negotiations the better?

My hon. Friend will remember that the Government sought in their advice to the review bodies to move a little further on the question of geographical pay, but the review bodies did not see fit to go beyond the London area. Under the recommendations, the outer London area carries, in addition to London weighting, a 5 per cent. supplement.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that one of the problems for nurses in inner London is the high cost of housing? In determining their pay award, and in considering the sale of nurses' homes, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that in future nurses can live reasonably near the hospitals at which they work?

There is no doubt that in inner London housing is an important factor in the employment of nurses. Last year the Government encouraged the Nationwide building society and other organisations to get together in some areas to assist in shared ownership. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that over the past two years the total rental increase for nurses' accommodation has been 4 per cent. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's point about nurses' accommodation. That is an important feature of the debate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of suggestions for differential payments for nurses in paediatric branches and for sisters in other branches of the NHS, although they are thought to be doing equal work? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that nurses and sisters at all levels should be given equal pay for equal work under the 1988 award?

Of course nurses must be paid equal pay for equal work. The idea behind the review system was to give additional rewards to those with additional skills and responsibilities, especially those relating to patient care. There were clear shortages in those skills, and that is what the review regrading system is geared to address.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy towards health authorities financing out of their budgets private nursing homes within the precincts of National Health Service hospitals.

We welcome close collaboration between the NHS and the independent sector including, where appropriate, making premises available on NHS land. However, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that health authorities have no power to provide finance for private homes, though they can of course buy places on contract.

Is the Minister not worried that ward 5 at Fazakerley hospital in Liverpool was closed recently, causing considerable distress to the elderly patients, and that a private nursing home for 85 people is being established, no doubt at a price? Is it not incongruous that National Health Service wards are closed but the private sector is allowed to get its profits out of nursing homes in the precincts of an NHS hospital?

It sounds as though part of the proposal is a good idea. The hon. Gentleman may like to check with his constituents in Liverpool before he takes that line. The total number of council-provided homes for elderly people in Liverpool stands at 43, providing 1,600 places, and the total number of private homes in Liverpool stands at 66, providing 1,800 places. The private and voluntary sectors in Liverpool are already providing most of the care for old people.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that once the Health and Medicines Bill is enacted it will be possible for district health authorities to enter into collaborative projects with private health providers and, if the authorities want, to provide private hospital accommodation in their own right?

Depending on the exact terms of the contracts being negotiated. some of these projects are already legal. Work is proceeding on them. We welcome these projects.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to ensure that the clinical grading review is based on actual jobs performed at the beginning of April and that managers will not be rewriting job descriptions.

The comprehensive management guidance which has been issued to health authorities makes it clear that, where this is possible, posts should be graded on the basis of existing duties and responsibilities.

The Minister gave a commitment to fund the award fully, but there are disturbing stories that, because of the cash limits placed on health authorities, managers are trying to squeeze the award down to the money available. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that would be a shortsighted policy, which could only cause problems in future years and lead to a sense of betrayal among nurses?

The Government have made the funds available to the health authorities to meet the costs of the award on the best available estimates. We have issued guidance to assist that process. I have every intention of ensuring that it is carried out in good faith.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and efforts on nurses' pay, but what fills many of us in the Conservative party with dread and foreboding is allowing regions to dole out the money to the districts, particularly regions such as North East Thames, which do not seem to have the management expertise to do so efficiently or properly.

I note my hon. Friend's views on the North East Thames regional health authority, which I share with him, but the sensible way to proceed is in the normal way that we seek to allocate funds in the Health Service.

Is it not now clear that the sum that the Government have set aside will not fund fully the nurses' pay award? The Government must give an unequivocal commitment to fund in full the results of the clinical grading review, otherwise managers will have to choose between downgrading nurses to meet the cash limits and cutting services to meet the pay award. Which is it to be?

I say simply that the hon. Lady is extremely unwise to venture such categorical assertions at such an early stage in this very large exercise.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set up an investigation into the effects on the disposable resources of persons dependent on social security benefits of the April 1988 social security changes, and in particular the effect on those in receipt of industrial injuries pension, war pensions or disability pensions.

We shall be monitoring the effects of the social security changes on all client groups—including the disabled.

Does the Minister accept that the most traumatic of the changes in April were the increases in payable rents because of the erosion of housing benefit, and that of all the changes the most hurtful are those affecting the groups mentioned in my question—industrial injuries pensioners, war pensioners and disability pensioners? Even allowing for the transitional payments, they will find their special pensions reduced by perhaps £2 per week because of the way in which the benefit is working. Will the Government look again at the working people in those positions are not hit by that change?

Let me separate those categories a little for the hon. Gentleman. He will know that for war pensioners the local authority discretion on housing benefit has not been removed. Any local authority that wishes to make special arrangements for war pensioners is free to do so. The other two categories are covered by the transitional payments, and any of the hon. Gentleman's constituents should now be applying to the transitional unit in Glasgow.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the distribution of explanatory leaflets for the benefit changes? Does he accept that two citizens advice bureaux in my constituency have drawn to my attention their concern about that? Can my hon. Friend do something to expedite the matter? I think that it would help.

I am sorry to hear of my hon. Friend's concern. Some 8·5 million copies of leaflet RR4 on housing benefit have been published and most have been sent out. All social security offices, local authorities and many advice centres have them. If my hon. Friend has a particular difficulty in mind, I should be pleased to consider it.

Can the Minister explain why charitable payments are now taken into account as income under the new income support scheme? Can he tell the House whether it is true that if a blind couple with guide dogs receive help in feeding their dogs, that couple could lose up to £10 a week under that scheme?

The first £5 a week is disregarded. Other payments are taken into account as capital, as I understand it. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that payments that are made to third parties are not taken into account. That provision could be helpful in the instance that he has mentioned.

It has not escaped my hon. Friend's notice that, for the Opposition, the alarmist flavour of the month is to suggest that more people are living in poverty. Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether the bottom 10 per cent. are better, or worse, off than they were six or seven years ago?

Since 1981 that group has experienced an increase in living standards of about 8 per cent., which is better than for the population as a whole, but my hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that under the old statistics, which are based on supplementary benefit, if the rates of benefit became more generous, more people appeared to be living in poverty.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will meet the Disability Alliance to discuss the effects on people with disabilities of the social security changes which took effect on 11 April 1988.

We already have.

I wonder whether Conservative Members are treating these questions seriously. The hon. Gentleman, amidst noise from the Government Benches, has given me a virtually monosyllabic answer. I have asked the Minister whether he really understands the misery and poverty that these changes in housing benefit and income support are causing. I want to ask him again and get a better answer. Does he not realise that there are severely disabled people in the community who at this moment are deeply worried about these changes? Will he tell the House exactly what he will do to satisfy these poor disabled people that these changes are not going to push them mercilessly into the sort of position into which the old and the sick are being pushed?

The hon. Gentleman could not have heard my answer. Let me give it to him again. We have already met the Disability Alliance. That was the question that the hon. Gentleman put to me.

What about the money?

I will tell the hon. Gentleman about the money. In the period of this Government, £3 billion has gone to disabled people. There has been an increase of 80 per cent. in real terms. Then, as part of the reforms that we introduced at the beginning of April, an extra £60 million is going into the disability premium, another £8 million into the severe disability premium and another £5 million into the Independent Living Fund. We have fulfilled our commitments to disabled people.

How is the Minister replying to the Alliance's letter of 28 June, which shows that over 1 million disabled people were made worse off and expresses deep concern that these benefit changes came before the report on disability that the House is awaiting from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys? Will he categorically confirm, or deny, The Independent's report of 23 June that the OPCS findings are already with the Government and that, by delaying its publication, the Government are deliberately trying to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and criticism and, by implication, acting in a way that is grossly contemptuous of this House?

Disabled people enjoy transitional protection at the point of change. The first report from the OPCS survey is likely to be published in September. There will be at least another three, and possibly another four, reports, the last of which I would expect to be published about 12 months from now. Until we have all those reports it would be premature to make any judgment about the extent and the nature of disability or the best way of meeting that need.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about the pay and working conditions of medical laboratory scientific officers within the National Health Service.

A claim for improved pay and conditions of service was submitted on 5 April. Since then we have received numerous letters from hon. Members and individual medical laboratory scientific officers. Negotiations are continuing in the appropriate Whitley council.

The Minister will know that the Secretary of State has reason to be grateful to these laboratory technicians, in that his blood samples, when he was in a private clinic, were tested and quantified by these technicians in St. Thomas's hospital. So the critical position of these technicians is well known to the DHSS team. Will the Minister concede that what is necessary are pay and conditions that will not only retain the technicians that we already have but attract to the profession people of the necessary calibre to service the industry?

I am sure that almost every hon. Member, quite apart from my right hon. Friend, has had cause to be grateful to MLSOs at one time or another over the years. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the management side has put to the Whitley council a pay offer of 5·5 per cent., together with proposals for a restructuring, which would lead to a further increase in pay on assimilation to the new structure. Those proposals are designed precisely to meet the sort of problem to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these people, although far less glamorous than nurses, in many cases undertake work of greater responsibility than nurses, with life and death involved, and that, certainly so far as Adenbrookes in my constituency is concerned, they have had a raw deal and deserve better treatment?

I am not sure that I care to tread into the minefield of the precise comparison with nurses, hut I certainly wish to pay tribute to the value of the work of MSLOs. The nature of some of that work has changed a good deal, hence the importance of the restructuring proposals.

As the management and staff sides meet tomorrow, why does the Minister not take this convenient opportunity to say that he will fully fund the cost of regrading? If he will not do so, can he really expect the House to believe that regrading is the way to solve the problem of low pay when he knows that management is offering only 2·1 per cent. to cover its costs? How does he hope to meet the Government's targets on cervical screening when the laboratories that carry out the screening are losing trained staff at the rate of 15 to 20 per cent. a year?

The offers being made by the management have been made after proper assessment of the cost. I am confident that they can be met. I should like to take this opportunity to wish both sides well for successful negotiations tomorrow.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was present at Victoria station to mark the arrival of the President of Turkey. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending a state banquet in honour of President Evren.

The Prime Minister is clearly in need of some rest and relaxation. Will she be letting her hair clown this year at the Notting Hill carnival? Before she does that, will she address herself to the deep-rooted problems of deprivation and discrimination that exist not only in Notting Hill but throughout our country? Will she do something about a situation in which apartments are for sale on our river at a cost of £370,000, with a Porsche thrown in, while in my local social security office in Harlesden, as a result of DHSS guidelines, the officers are paying out less than 2 per cent. of the total budget? [Interruption.] Will she confirm that the real cause of the moral thuggery about which the Home Secretary complains is in 10 Downing street itself?

Order. I ask for brief questions, please.

No, I am not in need of rest and relaxation. The moment that the House rises I shall be going to Australia for the bicentennial celebrations. [Interruption.] I shall be there while the House is not sitting. The hon. Gentleman asked about social security payments. He will be well aware, particularly as I have heard some of the replies today, that the amount spent on social security has gone up enormously. The standard of living of the lowest groups has increased more than the rest.

In view of the stand that my right hon. Friend has taken against terrorism, will she take time today to condemn the appalling attack yesterday on a Greek passenger vessel? While expressing sympathy to the victims, will she also pay tribute to the schoolchildren from the Sion school, Worthing, and those in charge of them, who not only reacted bravely but administered first aid to other people who had suffered?

I gladly respond to both parts of my right hon. Friend's question. This was an appalling act of terrorism against people on holiday. All acts of terrorism are appalling, but this was a particularly appalling one. The schoolchildren from Worthing were an enormous credit to themselves, their families, their school and to Britain in the way that they tackled the terrible events. I gladly pay tribute to them.

rose——[Interruption.]

Order. These interruptions take up a lot of time.

On 23 June the Secretary of State for the Environment gave the House figures purporting to compare the burden of poll tax with that of the rates. Were those figures correct?

I would stand by what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. I do not recall that matter, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be surprised if I did.

If the Prime Minister genuinely stands by what the Secretary of State said, why has she endorsed a candidate in Kensington who denies her figures and says that the burden of poll tax in Kensington will be a third of the figure announced by the Secretary of State? Why are Ministers endorsing his fabrication every morning?

As I understand it, the candidate in Kensington—[Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister.

For Kensington it has been said that the community charge would be—could be—£122 after the ILEA overspend—Labour's ILEA overspend—of £218 has been eliminated and after the money paid under the safety net has been eliminated. Those are two major figures. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish the safety net to be abolished, as that would hit many Labour authorities very hard indeed. It means that some areas—in some Tory councils—have to pay higher rates while it obtains. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to be proud of the £218 ILEA overspend.

I do not think that the Prime Minister is wholly in command of her subject [Interruption.] Does she realise that, in order to give even spurious justification to that calculation, she must be announcing to the House that she proposes a massive cut in education spending throughout the ILEA area? If the purpose of abolishing ILEA was to cut the cost of London education to the bone and to cut services with it, why did she not have the guts to tell the House at the time?

If the right hon. Gentleman were in command of his subject, he would realise that I had given him two very precise answers and even that the figures added up. The forecast of £122 is what the charge would be with no ILEA overspend of £218, which is to be laid at the door of a Socialist authority—the highest expenditure for some of the worst education in the country —and after the safety net, which is a burden deliberately placed on many Conservative authorities over a period of four years to help those in many Labour authorities. Does the right hon. Gentleman want that to be eliminated?

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the support given by Bury, Wigan and Rochdale councils to the employment training programme? Will she urge Bolton council not to turn its back on this excellent scheme to help the unemployed, and does she deplore the violent tactics used by some of the opponents of the scheme?

I hope that all authorities, including Bolton, will support the employment training scheme, and I welcome the support given by many local authorities. Those who do not support the scheme are depriving young people of very good training which will be very important in the coming decade because fewer young people will be leaving school and we shall need a greater proportion with the requisite skills. I hope that every authority will urgently support the scheme.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

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

Will the Prime Minister find time to meet representatives of the 500 advanced electronics workers at Marconi, Tyne and Wear, whose factory shut down yesterday, and the 5,000 shipyard workers whose jobs are at risk, to tell them face to face whether they, too, must get on their bikes to the bed-sits of south Kensington?

To the first part of the question, I am afraid that the answer is no. Redundancies are always a cause of great concern, especially in the areas where they occur, but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, unemployment is falling in every region. He knows full well that there would be no effective industry if we did not keep up to date with the times and if we did not rationalise industry. That has to be done on many occasions. No electronics factory could exist without keeping up with the very latest developments, and that sometimes means redundancies. The hon. Gentleman referred to shipbuilding. I assume that he was talking about the problems of Swan Hunter, or the problems of Sunderland. I read what some Opposition Members said when the main frigate programme went to Yarrow, but let me state clearly that that programme went to Yarrow because Yarrow put in the best tender.

When my right hon. Friend is discussing with her ministerial colleagues the question of Government hospitality, will she advise them to follow the example of the Leader of the Opposition in quaffing South African wine?

I think my hon. Friend makes the point more effectively than I could.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that in London there are many hundreds of children, including over 100 in my borough, who are officially recognised as being in danger of physical and sexual abuse but to whom, because of staff shortages, no social worker can be allocated? Is she aware that exploding house prices and the impending poll tax will only make matters worse? What will she do to assist these vulnerable children?

With all due respect to what the hon. Gentleman has said, I should have thought that that came very high on the list of priorities of any social worker and that any children who were vulnerable would be one of the first duties of the social workers who are there. [Interruption.] Otherwise, if the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases, will he please give the information to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has been doing excellent work for over a century or more?

My right hon. Friend will know of the announcement last Saturday about the Saudi Arabian arms deal. She will also understand that my constituents who work at Westland greeted that announcement with delight and, if I may say so, some relief. Will she take an early opportunity to come to Westland so that they may thank her in person for the part that she played in achieving that order for this country?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps one day I will visit the firm. May I point out that I think we obtained the Saudi Arabian order because of the excellent way in which the Tornado order was fulfilled. That is due to all in the company, both management and work force, who carried out that order, as well as to the training given by the Ministry of Defence and the support services. It is a success story that won another powerful order, which we welcome.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the anger in Scotland at the remark by the chairman of the British Steel Corporation last week to the effect that the Ravenscraig strip mill will probably close next year? Does she recognise that the strip mill is crucial to steel making at Ravenscraig and that Ravenscraig is fundamental to Scotland's future as an industrial nation? That is why any move to close it will be met by a campaign of popular resistance the like of which has not been seen before. Will she take the opportunity this afternoon to congratulate the Ravenscraig work force on achieving levels of productivity which are the highest of the five United Kingdom integrated plants and probably the highest in Europe? Will she affirm the Government's commitment to steelmaking at Ravenscraig?

I read very carefully the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Industry as long ago as 3 December 1987 on British Steel Corporation privatisation and the future of steel making at Ravenscraig. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with that statement, which made it clear that there will continue to be commercial requirement for steel making at Ravenscraig for at least the next seven years. My right hon. and learned Friend was tackled by Opposition Members straight away about the hot strip mill. He made the position clear:

"There is a problem with hot strip mills, as I frankly disclosed in my statement. There is surplus capacity in the United Kingdom. However, the commercial judgment of the corporation is that it can continue to operate all four strip mills, at least until 1989."—[Official Report, 3 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 1112.]

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

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

Will my right hon. Friend accept the House's gratitude for taking on board six refurbishment areas of rundown inner cities held by Labour authorities? Does she agree that it is a national scandal that today more than 136 council dwellings, largely in the hands of Socialist bureaucracies, lie vacant? Will she tackle that matter at the earliest possible opportunity?

I saw the welcome that my right hon. Friend's statement on action housing trusts received in the House yesterday. The people living in those areas will greatly welcome the increased expenditure on their housing and the higher standard of living and greater security that they will enjoy. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that many council houses are left vacant for far too long. They number about 110,000 properties. The complaints about homelessness made by many of the authorities concerned would be far more credible if they were to fill some of the accommodation that they have left empty.

As the Sharpeville Six's stay of execution is running out, will the Prime Minister make the strongest representations to the South African President that it would hinder the dialogue between South Africa and our country, and with all democratic and justice-loving countries, if those executions were to proceed?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, representations have already been made to President Botha——

By the right hon. Lady?

By me, through the usual channels and through the best channels, for clemency towards the Sharpeville Six. If their death sentences are confirmed, those representations will be made again. They will not be made only by me, but will be reinforced by the 'Toronto summit Seven and the Community Twelve.