To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 October.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Given the press speculation this morning about the leaked letter from one of her Departments, is the Prime Minister still committed to the poor and the pensioners on the rebates of the poll tax?

The hon. Gentleman refers to a leaked document. I remember when a Labour Prime Minister was faced with the publication of a leaked document preceding the statement made by the Secretary of State for Social Services about child benefit. I remember full well what the Labour Prime Minister said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] In June 1976 he said: This is a very grave matter. For, on the face of it, it could only have been brought about by theft, or by a betrayal of trust involving a breach of an undertaking voluntarily entered into, by someone with access to the documents. May I remind the hon. Gentleman—[HON MEMBERS: "What is the right hon. Lady's answer?]

Order. A question has been asked and we are receiving the answer. It is fair enough.

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the reply by the then Leader of the Opposition, which I well remember.

I did not ask the Prime Minister that. What is her attitude?

The reply was: Is the Prime Minister aware that we fully share his view about the gravity of this matter? It is essential that confidentiality of discussions and documents should be assured."—[Official Report, 17 June 1976; Vol. 913, c. 738.] In those days there were certain standards of conduct and integrity. [Interruption.]

Order. Prime Minister's Question Time is a very precious time. Interruptions lead to delay.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 October.

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

To what extent is the conduct of Government business affected when ministerial confidence in correspondence cannot be maintained as it should be? Does not the thoroughly dishonest behaviour of one civil servant in this recent leak severely damage the reputation of the whole Civil Service? Does this not reflect equally badly on members of the Opposition who are prepared to receive and use stolen property?

Yes, but let me pay tribute to the loyalty and integrity of the vast majority in the Civil Service. Indeed, I was dismayed to find—[Interruption.]

Order. Disorderly conduct does not help our reputation in this place.

I was dismayed to find that the Opposition had been party to publishing and destroying highly classified documents. I trust that they will co-operate fully with any investigations.

rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]

Order. The same rules apply to both sides.

I hear the views of the Prime Minister of Westland on these matters. I consider leaks to be grave, but what I consider to be more grave is the theft of child benefit from families who need it.

It is clear that British Aerospace stands to make a huge killing because it was allowed to buy the Royal Ordnance factories at a give-away price. What does the Prime Minister intend to do to secure the full reward which must be due to the British taxpayer from any sale or development of those assets?

The right hon. Gentleman asked about child benefit—[Interruption.]—for almost all the time and then went on to ask a second question—[Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister must be given a chance to answer the question.

I will reply to the three points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I repeat that I trust that he will attempt to live up to the standards of the Labour Prime Minister in those days and that he will co-operate fully with any investigations. I challenge him to say whether he will do that.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman knows that there will be a statement on child benefit later. He also knows that for almost all the time that Labour was last in government, for families on average earnings the value of the child tax allowance and family allowance or child benefit in real terms was far below what it has been under this Government. That was so for the entire period of the last Labour Government, with the exception of one month. One month before the general election they put up child benefit.

With regard to Royal Ordnance, the Government will be responding to the Public Accounts Committee by means of a Treasury minute in the normal way in due course. The National Audit Office has already investigated the sale. The report by the Comptroller and Auditor General acknowledged that. It said: the sale to BAe was achieved in a competitive situation"—[Interruption.] I am quoting from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report: The sale to BAe was achieved in a competitive situation and the evidence"—[Interruption.]

Order. We are making very slow progress, which will be to the detriment of Back Benchers.

I quote: The sale to BAe was achieved in a competitive situation and the evidence available suggested that the competition was sufficiently widely based to secure the highest price likely in the prevailing commercial climate. That was the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on this matter.

That reply does not begin to answer the question that I addressed to the Prime Minister. Does she not understand that the give-away and any losses that result from it are the fault of her Government? Does she not understand that if she does not take action to recover the money that is due to the British people she will be doing a Barlow Clowes on the British taxpayer?

It is quite clear, then, that the right hon. Gentleman has absolutely no respect for the Comptroller and Auditor General. The right hon. Gentleman has respect for no one, and least of all for the standards of this House.

I thank my right hon. Friend for those replies and ask her whether she is aware that she will have the full support of Conservative Members and of most people outside the House if, on any future occasion on which she is faced with loutish and unparliamentary insults from the Leader of the Opposition, she continues as she began last Tuesday and treats the little twerp with the contempt that he deserves.

Most of us in this House were brought up to know that those who resort to personal abuse have already lost the argument—if they ever had one.

Is the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Order. We are only on the second question and these interruptions take up a lot of time.

Is the Prime Minister aware that her new-found concern for the greenhouse effect is most welcome? The House well knows of her love-in with the nuclear industry, but I wonder whether she has read the United States report which shows that measures to improve energy efficiency are seven times more cost-effective than money spent on nuclear power. If the Government are serious about the greenhouse effect, what strategy will they now introduce to improve Britain's appallingly low energy efficiency?

One of the most effective things would be to reduce the amount of fossil fuel that is burnt to provide ordinary energy for domestic and industrial purposes.

I read a report that sounded similar to the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It pointed out that we need an increase of about 2 per cent. a year in energy efficiency and that we also need to go back to afforestation on a considerable scale, to prevent the greenhouse effect from getting worse. We are giving considerable attention to both those items.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 recommends that every employer, even in low-hazard industries, of more than 150 people has on-site first aiders, and that no such cover is recommended for schools? Will she ensure that in future schools are brought up to the same level of cover as even low-hazard industries?

With all due respect, I think the two are very different. Some of the industries concerned are very dangerous. I do not think that it would be necessary to have someone on site at schools. Obviously it is necessary to have the capacity to get someone there quickly for help, should it be needed.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 October.

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

Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether we should give any more weight to her assurances about poll tax rebates than we now give to her assurances on child benefit, and if so, why?

I think the hon. Lady will find that the assurances on the community charge are fully honoured.

Does the Prime Minister realise, on a happy note, that her statement that she is prepared to lead the Conservative party at the next general election and beyond has introduced stability to the economy, and that inward investment will grow even more? Will she be sure not to be put off by the carping of one or two of yesterday's men, but to rely on all of us around her who are behind her 100 per cent? [Interruption.]

Order. I am sure that the House wants to hear the answer.

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. Everything that I have seen and heard from the Opposition this afternoon reinforces me in what I said to The Times the other day and of the necessity for it.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 October.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall recently endorsing a lottery intended to benefit the grossly under-resourced National Health Service and then having to remove her endorsement when the lottery turned out to be illegal? Is she proposing to endorse a further lottery launched today for the same purpose, which appears to be illegal under both current and intended legislation?

If something is illegal, one cannot possibly endorse it.[Interruption.] No, certainly not. On that particular private sector lottery, the advice was that as far as could be seen it was legal. When the advice came that it was illegal, of course one did not endorse it. I have not the slightest intention of having a national lottery organised by the Government. I disapprove of them.