asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many favourable and unfavourable views he has received on the White Paper on data protection.

The White Paper sought comments by 31 May. The views so far received include criticisms of certain features of the proposals, but there has also been widespread acceptance that the Government's approach is a reasonable and balanced one.

Does the Minister accept that many people feel that the White Paper is an example of fudge and compromise which satisfies nobody? It will not give genuine protection to the individual and it is in danger of setting up a bureaucracy that will achieve nothing.

The hon. Gentleman's tired platitudes do not help. I believe that this will prove to be the right legislation and that it will be widely accepted.

If the data protection procedures outlined in the White Paper prove to be ineffective, may we have an assurance that there will be a review within 12 months?

That is an extremely hypothetical suggestion. I say again that I believe that our measures will prove to be effective and acceptable.

The Minister will recall that the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box that she hoped that there would be legislation in the Session following the White Paper. May we have a promise to that effect?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not in a position to make firm promises about next year's legislative programme. However, we want to make progress on this matter.

Is the Minister not concerned that the White Paper contains no provision for the protection of the accumulation of data in, for example, the £20 million Special Branch computer? If there is no authorisation from the House, if the House is not accountable, and if there is no protection of the data, what sort of protection has the ordinary citizen got?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is clearly understood, and it has been made clear in the European convention on this subject, that matters involving State security are exempt from the legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost per young offender at Portland borstal.

Figures for individual establishments are not available. The average weekly cost of keeping a person in a borstal or young prisoner centre was £180 in 1980–81.

Is not one of the weaknesses of the sentences served at Portland, as well as at other borstals, that they have an inderterminate nature? Does my hon. and learned Friend appreciate that he would have great support if he phased out borstal sentences and replaced them with determinate youth custody orders.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There is a wide body of support for the provision in the Criminal Justice Bill—which received its Third Reading last night—which ensures that the indeterminate sentences for young offenders will be phased out. In future, sentences will be determinate. That is a great advance.

Does the Minister recall that the reconviction rate for young people leaving borstal institutions has increased from 63 to 69 per cent. in the past five years and that the figure for juveniles is 83 per cent.? Therefore, does he accept that, given the ineffectiveness of custody and residential care in preventing the commission of further offences, there should be a massive and fundamental change of resources away from custodial sentences to other options within the community?

In those custodial establishments, I do not dispute that the success rate for going straight for more than two years is not encouraging. On the other hand, custodial sentences must be available to the courts for dangerous offenders, including young offenders.

Does not the cost of keeping people in Portland borstal, or anywhere else, include an element to cover the cost of education? Will my hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that the quality of education in borstals and other custodial institutions—for the young or for anyone else—will be kept under constant review?

The cost of keeping people in such institutions certainly includes the cost of educational staff. There are no plans to change the present educational arrangements at such institutions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, subsequent to Operation Countryman, any further inquiries have been set up into alleged corruption in the Metropolitan Police.

Yes, Sir. Certain other investigations into alleged corruption by police officers have been put in hand by the complaints investigation bureau of the Metropolitan Police and will be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Police Complaints Board as necessary.

I welcome the Home Secretary's reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite all the talk of cleaning up the Metropolitan Police through Operation Countryman, all we got was a cover up? If we wish to tackle the corruption and perjury that we repeatedly hear about, should not the Home Secretary become personally responsible for these inquiries? Should he not begin by appointing a totally independent person, who will not be subject to any form of police pressure, to conduct the inquiries?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's wild allegations. If he has any individual cases to put before me, I hope that he will do so.

Would it not be corrupt for the Metropolitan Police, or any other police force that was up to establishment, to select additional recruits on the basis of race?

There is no question of doing so.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman still concerned about the outcome of Operation Countryman, since it clearly did not produce the results intended and did not satisfy the anxieties of people such as Sir Robert Mark? Is it not time that we reconsidered the status of the Metropolitan Police force and perhaps broke it up into four separate forces?

I do not think so. Operation Countryman was very important and it made various investigations. We all dwell far too much, in a generalized way, on cases of corruption. It would be unfair to the Metropolitan Police if we did not recognise its outstanding record as a whole.

Is it not well known to anyone with any knowledge of such matters that the Metropolitan Police is the least corrupt—

Nonsense. Sir Robert Mark did not say that.

of any of the police forces in the capital cities of the Western world?

The British police service as a whole—including the Metropolitan Police—has a very high record, which would bear comparison with any police service in the world.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the guide to fire precautions in residential care premises.

We hope to be able to publish the draft guide in the late summer.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there are about 450 fires per annum in residential homes for the elderly and that it is nearly two and a half years since I was told in an Adjournment debate that a code of guidance would be prepared? Is he further aware that it is nearly six months since the end of the consultation period on that code of guidance? Is it not time that my hon. and learned Friend got on with publishing the document?

I accept that that amount of time has elapsed. On the other hand, three separate rounds of consultations have taken place. The last revision is expected to take another six to eight weeks, but we hope to arrange publication by the late summer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the funding by his Department to the Merseyside community relations council over the past three years.

The Home Office does not fund community relations councils. I understand that in the last three financial years the Commission for Racial Equality has given Merseyside community 'relations council grants of about £25,000, £37,000 and £39,000.

Does the Minister accept that there is a case for positive discrimination in areas such as Toxteth, Brixton and Moss Side? Is he aware that fundings from the CRE to the Merseyside community relations council do not go towards specialist appointments and the salaries of persons such as the employment officer and the education officer? They are essential posts. Will the Home Office consider rectifying the situation?

The question of which posts within community relations councils are supported is a matter for the CRE and the local authority, not for the Home Office. Positive discrimination is largely a matter of terminology. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government help to remedy racial disadvantage through a number of schemes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to the chief constable of Bedfordshire's request for an additional 30 policemen on approved establishment.

The Bedfordshire police authority has been informed that I am prepared to approve an increase of five police officer posts.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that, before the figures were announced, the Bedfordshire establishment was 43 short of the proposed figure? Is he further aware that during the first three months of this year crime in Bedfordshire rose by 12 per cent. compared with last year and that the detection rate has fallen substantially? Therefore, will he give special consideration to Bedfordshire, because of its special problems, and increase the figure with a view to trying to combat the rising crime rate in the county?

I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that I have to balance the considerations of all police authorities throughout the country. Bedfordshire police strength has increased by 84 since the Conservative Party came to power. Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary considers that there is scope in Bedfordshire for greater use of civilians to fill posts at present held by police officers. That will increase the number of officers available for operational duties. I hope that it will be able to do that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the immigration rules to enable all women who are legally settled in the United Kingdom to be joined there by their husbands or fiancé.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister recall that, during the debates on the British Nationality Bill last year, he gave a clear pledge to review the rules? Does he accept that, if he does not change the rules, young women in Asian families—of which all the members are full British citizens—will often be second-class citizens, because they alone among British citizens will not have the right to live here with their spouses? Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, when the British Nationality Act comes into operation, that rule will be both racially and sexually discriminatory?

During the passage of the British Nationality Bill I said that when the Act came into operation we would issue new rules and that, when we did that, it would be possible to use citizenship as the basis for a new scheme. The hon. Gentleman's question refers to those who are legally settled in the United Kingdom, which is a somewhat different matter.

How many new immigrants would be allowed in if the rules were amended, as suggested by the Opposition?

I think that the number would be about 3,000 per year. It is not possible to be more precise than that.

Does the Minister accept that that part of the immigration rules is blatantly discriminatory against a small section of our community? Does he agree that if the rules were changed, on the figures that he has just given there would be no great increase in immigration, although such a change would do a great deal to improve race relations in the United Kingdom?

We introduced the changes because of our concern about the extent to which marriage was being used as a means of primary male immigration. As to what we might do in future, I cannot add to what I have said.

As the Government's new rules on this issue are being tested in Europe before the Commission and the Court, will the Government obey the likely decision of the Court that these rules are invalid?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is anticipating the conclusions of the European Commission of Human Rights. We do not have those conclusions. All we know is that three cases have been deemed admissible, but the question of merit has not yet been touched upon.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these rules apply equally to all the people of different parts of the world and therefore cannot be construed as being racially discriminatory?

Yes, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if people are saying, and the Government have always said, that people in this country, irrespective of nationality, are equal before the law, he should not allow a law to exist that makes certain people unequal in relation to others? The argument that the rule was brought in, to avoid men gaining admission is not in accord with the facts, as a large number of safeguards have always been applied to prevent that happening. There are instances of women, legally married to men for some time, who cannot gain admittance because of the rule.

I can only repeat that there is solid evidence that the marriage route has been a means by which primary male immigration to this country has taken place. That was why we brought forward our proposals in 1980.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were held in prisons in England and Wales at the latest available date.

The total prison population was about 44,300 on 14 May.

As the prisons are grossly overcrowded, against a background of a very low detection rate for crime, what plans has the Minister to deal with the total breakdown of the prison system in the event of an increase in the detection rate, particularly as the Criminal Justice Bill will, at best, make only a marginal improvement?

The question is hypothetical. We place much reliance on the trend established by the Court of Appeal and the judiciary, after judgment had been given in the Upton and Bibi cases, which led to a shortening of sentences of non-violent offenders. We believe that the Criminal Justice Bill will make substantial improvements in that direction.

How does the hon. and learned Gentleman explain the fact that during the few months of the prison officers' dispute the prison population was reduced by more than 4,000? What lessons has the hon. and learned Gentleman learnt from that that might lead to a permanent reduction in our prison population?

We do not want another prison officers' dispute. There were many reasons why the numbers went down during that period. High among them was the fact that there was a slowing down in committals and prosecutions in non-urgent cases.

Has the Minister seen the recent statement by the Lord Chief Justice, in which he said that the judiciary would not have opposed the introduction of an early supervised release scheme for short-term prisoners if it had been given discretion to exempt certain prisoners from early release? In the light of that statement, will the hon. and learned Gentleman now bring forward amendments in the other place to implement a scheme of automatic early release, with exemptions, in an attempt substantially to reduce the prison population?

No, Sir. These matters were fully discussed in Conunittee and on Report of the Criminal Justice Bill. Having consulted the judiciary, I do not believe that the original proposal put forward for consultation for an early release scheme was satisfactory. The present arrangements in the Criminal Justice Bill are an improvement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in strengthening the police force, both in terms of numerical strength and material support.

The total strength of the police service in England and Wales has increased by 8,480 since May 1979, and stood at 119,973 at the end of March this year. I expect the total strength to increase to 121,000 by March 1983. I know that police authorities and chief officers of police appreciate the importance of ensuring that appropriate levels of material and other support services are maintained.

I welcome that excellent progress. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the police force, which has been greatly strengthened under this Administration, will always have his full support in enforcing the law impartially on all citizens, despite political pressure to the contrary?

Most certainly, yes. I went to the Police Federation conference yesterday and gave positive assurances on behalf of the Government and, I hope, of the House as a whole.

Will the Home Secretary comment on reports affecting the Merseyside police which would seem to indicate that, owing to a shortage of funds, it may be necessary to remove many administrative staff, whose places will have to be filled by taking police of the beat? If so, is that not contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's assurance to the House, after the Scarman report, that we would have more police on the beat, particularly in areas such as Toxteth?

There will be more police on the beat. I gave that assurance and I mean it. I hear many rumours from Merseyside, but, fortunately, I find that I am right in not believing all that I hear.

What does that mean? It is a slur on Merseyside.

I admire the way that the Home Secretary can rally support in his party despite the collapse of law and order in the country under this Government. [Interruption.] Look at the figures. Does the Home Secretary appreciate that there is widespread concern about the deployment of the police, particularly in inner city areas, and their material support? Does he agree that such matters are the rightful concern of police committees in places such as Manchester and Liverpool? Will he advise chief constables that they have responsibilities to discuss deployment and material support with elected local representatives?

I am amazed at the hon. Gentleman. He supported a Government who did so much to undermine the strength of, and support for, the police service—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has had his say. I could shout louder than him, if need be, but I shall not. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is not doing badly from a seated position.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of keeping up the morale of the police force? Will he also note the constant attacks made by the Opposition on the police force and on my right hon. Friend, who has always strongly backed the police force?

Yes. I went to the Police Federation conference yesterday, where I was assured by those who were there that the morale of the police service is extremely is high. I was glad to find that.

Will the Home Secretary examine the experience of the chief constable of Lancashire? He was able to put more police on the beat in places such as Skelmersdale by running down the over-inflated traffic department, without any visible effect on the number of traffic accidents. Is that not a more legitimate and sensible way of dealing with our force?

All chief constables are carefully considering the effective use of manpower. They recognise that it is extremely important.

Wainwright asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of television licences issued as at the latest available date.

On 31 March 1982 there were about 18½ million licences in force.

Does the Minister realise that many elderly people on low incomes cannot afford to pay the present rate for a television licence? Will he bear in mind that people living in hostels, special homes and council organised homes get a cheap licence, whereas many elderly persons living nearby have to pay the full licence fee? Should not something be done to enable these people to afford a television licence, especially single people on low incomes living alone?

The matter was debated as recently as December last year, when the House came to a decision. Our view is that the right way to help retirement pensioners is essentially by maintaining in real terms the value of the retirement pension. If we introduce a range of different means of support for people, including the payment of the television licence fee, we shall add to the anomalies that already exist.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is a proper use of licence contributors' money for the BBC to commission special public opinion polls so that it can indulge in a propaganda battle with the elected Government?

That does not fall within the terms of this question.

Will the Minister consider extending to invalidity pensioners living in special homes the licence concession that is extended to retirement pensioners living in special homes?

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but, as I have already said, the extension of concessions in this area will not help. The right thing is to provide proper benefits and pensions. The right hon. Gentleman of all people will know that local authorities may help disabled persons with the cost of television licences in cases of need under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will replace the Government assistance given under section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971 to the International Social Services for immigrants wishing to return home by a Government-controlled and financed body to help all immigrants wishing to return home.

We have no plans to do so.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which I find somewhat disappointing. In view of the fact that in 1980–81 the International Social Service helped only 139 cases, and in view of the opinion poll of West Indian and African immigrants, which showed that about 59 per cent. wished to go home, it is about time that the Government considered taking over—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must put it in the form of a question, not an opinion.

In view of that information and the information that I forwarded to my right hon. Friend in a letter from the International Social Service, showing that it has not helped one of my constituents, will he reconsider his answer?

We cannot attach too much importance to that opinion poll. Pressure has not been put on us that shows that many people wish to be repatriated. The case of my hon. Friend's constituent occurred in 1979. More recently, there has been a further offer of an interview with his constituent.

Will the Minister repudiate more directly the racism that comes from many of his Back Benchers by agreeing with me that to talk of sending black British people home is an evil nonsense, because they are home already?

The hon. Gentleman does not put his case as temptingly as he might, but I am prepared to say that a campaign for repatriation would do nothing to help lace relations in this country.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) was welcome and that it is hard to imagine a scheme better calculated to damage race relations than one in which the Government appear to encourage immigrants to leave Britain?

The present arrangements are the right way to deal with the problem. I repeat that I do not believe that a massive campaign to stimulate repatriation would' do any good.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute a review of police establishment strengths in England and Wales.

Police force establishments are kept under review by chief officers, police authorities and Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary. Police authorities are responsible for fixing the authorised establishment of forces, subject to my approval. I recently completed consideration to applications for increases from 16 police authorities and I am prepared to approve additional posts for eight forces, including the Thames Valley police.

I am grateful for the layer remarks of my right hon. Friend, but does he not agree that there is a considerable disparity in the ratio of police to population in different constabularies? The national average is one policeman to 431 members of the community, whereas in the Thames Valley it is one policeman to 565. Is not the latter figure the lowest in England and Wales and is there not a case for a substantial rise in the number of police constables in the Thames Valley force?

For those reasons, which I accept, among others, I was prepaid to authorise 10 additional posts for Thames Valley. As my hon. Friend appreciate, its strength has increased by 445 in the past three years.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are enough policemen in the middle ranks of the force of sufficient calibre to take up the most senior appointments?

Yes, I am. I can give my hon Friend that assurance.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received about the need for all pensioners to be treated equally in respect of concessionary television licence fees.

In the past six months, 53 representations have been received from hon. Members and just under 100 direct from members of the public.

Is the Minister aware that what is really needed is a Bill to wipe out all the anomalies for those pensioners who cannot have the 5p licence fee? Is he aware that Mr. Leslie Gale, a bed-ridden multiple sclerosis victim who lives about four miles from me, has had to be fined because he refused to pay his television licence fee? He has to lie in bed all day. Surely it is now necessary for the Government to have a fresh examination of those anomalies with a view to bringing in a Bill so that all pensioners receive concessionary licences, including the disabled?

I do not believe that the best way of dealing with the problem is by a spread of concessions. I have already made the point that local authorities can help the disabled where there is a need for them to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious that pensioners should have a fair and equal system of television licence concessions? That is what we are fighting for, and we hope that the Front Bench will take it on board eventually.

I say again to my hon. Friend that the right way to help pensioners is through their pensions and the amount of money that they have at their disposal. They can spend it as they think best.

Will the Minister bear in mind that on the Labour Benches we are all agreed that the only satisfactory way of resolving the inequality among pensioners is to phase out television licences for all retirement pensioners?

It is a bit much for the hon. Lady to put that to us. She was in office at the Home Office for the best part of six years and nothing was done to follow that policy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the usual length of time in any one post of a prison governor.

As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in reply to a question by my hon. Friend on 8 April, the overriding factor in determining moves must be the operational needs of the service, and there is no usual length of time in any one post of prison governor.

While thanking my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he feels that one reason for the troubles in prisons such as Gartree in Leicestershire is the fact that, since it was established 16 years ago, there have been no fewer than eight governors? Is that not a possible inducement to unrest and lack of continuity?

I know of the problems at Gartree to which my hon. Friend referred, but we must have regard to the overall needs of the service. Sometimes a governor must be transferred, for example to take command of another prison, as the previous governor of Gartree was transferred to take command at Brixton. It is not always possible to do that at convenient times.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has held any discussions with chief constables on the measures being taken by them to increase public confidence in the police.

I am satisfied that the vast majority of the public have full confidence in the police. The welcome increase in police strength has allowed chief constables to return many more men to the streets, where the public wish to see them. My officials are discussing with chief constables and others the terms of the guidance that I propose to issue shortly about local consultation arrangements between the police and the community.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the public are often not aware of the many functions and duties that the police carry out on their behalf? Does he agree that the system of open days at police stations has been an enormous success in fostering further confidence between the public and the police? Will he give encouragement to extend those open days where possible?

I know—because I come from near my hon. Friend's constituency—that they had a successful open day at Morecambe. Open days should be encouraged, and they are very well supported by the public when they are given.

Will the Home Secretary publish comparative figures for crimes committed and detected in 1978 and 1981? Having done so, will he publicise those figures widely? That at least would stop the Home Secretary's efforts to delude his own Back Benchers into thinking that the Government have been even remotely successful in their campaign to reduce crime?

If the hon. Gentleman would like to table a question on those matters I shall, of course, answer it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of increasing confidence in the police would be to encourage chief constables to resist the temptation of making public statements when they can be avoided?

I think that chief constables are aware well of the feelings of some hon. Members and of what the House has frequently said on that subject.

Does the Home Secretary agree that one way of creating more confidence in the police would be to remove the need for eminent barristers such as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) to have to spend days in court making allegations of misconduct against the police? Would not this be much less likely if all interrogations were tape recorded?

I should have thought it was clear to most people that some policemen make mistakes and that some are guilty of misconduct. However, for every policeman in those categories, there are many hundreds giving a great service in protecting the citizens of this country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review immigration policy in the light of the continuing trend of increase in the proportion of the population from ethnic minority groups of non-United Kingdom origin, in London and other major areas.

There has been a reduction in the number of immigrants accepted for settlement and we remain committed to firm immigration control.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that of the 32 London boroughs, in one, two-thirds of the births are to mothers of foreign origin, in six, over half the births are to mothers of foreign origin, in 13 over 40 per cent., in 19 over 30 per cent. and in two-thirds over 20 per cent.? Since this has massive implications for the identity of the capital city of this country, and since there is massive public concern about this issue, will my right hon. Friend reassure the House and the country that the Government are aware of these facts and intend to introduce policies that the country wants and needs?

Racist.

We carefully follow social trends. I have told my hon. Friend that we have tight immigration control and that the numbers of immigrants are falling. That is important. At the same time, I think that the figures referred to by my hon. Friend show the equal importance of a positive race relations policy.

Does the Minister agree that so long as black women have black babies, and so long as ethnic minorities are disproportionately younger than the existing population, it is clear that there will be a slight increase until the black population stabilises at about 3–3 million at the end of this decade and that, thereafter, it will remain stable unless there is new immigration?

It is obvious that the demographic factors to which the hon. Gentleman referred are important in this area.

Does the Minister agree that any increase in the black population of our inner cities is not a cause for alarm, or for further racist immigration policies? Does he further agree that it is a cause for urgent Government action to ensure that black youngsters do not suffer the disadvantages, particularly in education and employment, that young people in the inner cities are now suffering?

I have already told the House that it is important when looking at these matters to have a positive approach to race relations. The Government have that positive approach.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many allegations of miscarriage of justice were made to his Department in each of the past five years; and in respect of how many he took steps to remedy such alleged miscarriages.

In any one year several thousand representations are received from, or on behalf of, convicted persons, which touch on matters relating to conviction. I regret that it is not possible, without disproportionate effort, to identify which of these should be classified as allegations of miscarriage of justice. I shall publish in the Official Report a table indicating, for each of the years 1977 to 1981, the number of cases in which, after considering representations about conviction, my right hon. Friend has taken action to remove or mitigate its effects.

I am grateful to the Minister for publishing those figures. However, did he see the three programmes entitled "Rough Justice" on television in which it was fairly clear that two individuals have probably been wrongly convicted of murder? Is there absolutely nothing that the Minister can do to reduce the time-scale by which his Department investigates these matters and make the method of investigation rather more open to scrutiny by Members of the House?

I am aware of the programmes to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Additional speed in investigating such cases can be achieved only at the expense of thoroughness. I do not believe that that would be right.

Will my hon. and learned Friend point out to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) that it is not possible to remedy an alleged miscarriage of justice unless it has been proved?

I should not have thought it necessary always to point out the obvious, but experience has taught me that sometimes it is.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the call for a ceasefire in the Falkland Islands is gathering strength nationally and internationally? Will she therefore tell us how many more lives—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading"]—will be sacrificed to satisfy the lust for blood by the hawks on the Government Benches behind her? Will she tell us when the nation can expect the faith, hope and harmony that she promised three years ago from the steps of 10 Downing Street?

A ceasefire without withdrawal would leave the invader in possession of the Falkland Islands and our people under his subjection. That is far from our objective.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the object of this exercise is to restore freedom and the rule of law to the Falkland Islands? Will she ensure that her view of that is not obscured by any Argentine fancy footwork?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Our objective is to restore freedom and the rule of law to the Falkland Islands and we will not be put off by Argentine procrastination.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House, in advance of her speech this afternoon, whether she will be able, in the course of that speech, to inform the House of the terms proposed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations? If that is not possible, can the right hon. Lady give us an idea of when she thinks those terms might be made known to the House?

Not in detail, but I shall be able to give some indication of aspects that have yet to be resolved.

As President Mitterrand has invited my right hon. Friend to state what is Britain's role within the European Community, will my right hon. Friend tell President Mitterrand that we will not be told by others what lies within our national interest, and that a heavy responsibility now rests with the Community to put right the wrong that it has done?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What has happened over the Luxembourg compromise is very serious and could be even more serious if majority voting is applied to other aspects of Community work. Our role in the Community is to be a full and equal partner and to be fully entitled to equitable and fair treatment.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that the decision taken in Europe is a kick in the teeth and a sellout of British interests? Does she further agree that the simplest answer to the present crisis in the EEC would be to take Britain out of the common agricultural policy? Is she aware that that decision would be widely welcomed on Merseyside, in the regions and, indeed, throughout the land?

The decision is without precedent and has serious implications. We are full members of the EEC. We intend to remain full members of the EEC and we intend to make our views known and see whether we can reverse that decision about the Luxembourg compromise.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to the New Zealand Government this country's widespread appreciation and gratitude for their generous action in support not only of Britain but of the rule of international law, not least by offering to support us with Her Majesty's New Zealand ship "Canterbury"?

Gladly. The New Zealand Government and people have been absolutely magnificent in their support of this country, of the Falkland Islanders and of the rule of liberty and the rule of law. I shall gladly convey that to Mr. Muldoon, who, only yesterday, reminded me "Don't forget. In New Zealand, we are still a member of the same family."

I return to the question of the Luxembourg compromise. We shall be discussing the other matters later today. Will the right hon. Lady say whether her answer a few moments ago means that she advocates that we should remain members of the Common Market and of the common agricultural policy, whatever may happen to the Luxembourg compromise? Would she like to have a vote of the House of Commons, following the debate that we are glad will be taking place on this extremely important subject next Wednesday, to sustain her? Does she agree that that might be helpful? Will she guarantee to carry out what the House of Commons votes for?

We are a member of the European Community. What has happened over the Luxembourg compromise is very serious. I believe that it is in our interests to continue to be a member of the European Community. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that one needs a little time to see precisely how we should tackle this latest serious situation.

Since this remarkable document, in the Vote Office, has revealed that Her Majesty's Government, in the interests of peace, have been prepared to carry compromise almost to the point of folly, has not the time come for the House to turn its back on timidity and compromise and to make it clear to the gauleiters of Buenos Aires that when British forces have been committed in a just cause they have always triumphed and the consequences for their opponents have been devastating?

As I shall say in my speech later, I do not believe that we have, in that document, compromised any of the fundamental principles that I set out at the beginning—none of them. We were prepared to make certain practical changes that were reasonable if we were to obtain the prize of no further loss of life. But there has been no compromise on fundamental principles.

Does the Prime Minister accept that her reiteration that the Government intend to stay in the Common Market is an indicaton to her so-called partners that they will get away with anything that they like to try? Will she take a much firmer stand than was evident in the replies of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday—for instance, by going immediately to a 200-mile limit for fisheries?

I was merely suggesting that we should have time to think through all the aspects before we propose action. That seems to me a very good principle.

Bearing in mind what happened yesterday in the European Common Market, will my right hon. Friend adopt the same robust attitude over this issue as she has so properly adopted over Argentina? If we are to remain members of the Common Market, will my right hon. Friend be just as forthright on that issue?

We are entitled to reasonable and fair treatment. I believe that what has happened over the Luxembourg compromise, and the idea that we can go ahead with changes in the CAP without changes in the structure of the budget, is a breach of faith. We must now get changes in the structure of the budget to Britain's advantage.

Will the right hon. Lady explain how the failure of our Community partners to observe the Luxembourg compromise will affect the future of the common fisheries policy? Is it not a fact that, at the end of the year, whatever any of her right hon. and hon. Friends may say, if the right hon. Lady persists in remaining in the community, the Common Market countries can fish up to our beaches, have all our fish, ruin our industry and give us no compensation?

I accept that if major decisions are in future to be taken by majority rule this would have a very serious effect on almost every major decision and would seriously affect the future of the Common Market. I ask the hon. Gentleman and the House for time to consider this latest position and to prepare a proper response.

I thank my right hon. Friend for what she has said about our relationship with the European Community.

Reading.

It is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in 1972 when he took us into the EEC.

The draft said in paragraph 88—

Reading.

Order. I expect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's memory is good enough to sustain him. He has had a look now.

The draft said that we will in no circumstances hand over the Falkland Islands to a regime like the Argentine regime that has no respect for human and civil rights. Does that not reflect in a fair way what is the view of the British people as a whole?

I believe that it does reflect the view of the British people as a whole that we should not hand over the Falkland Islands to the dictatorship of Argentina. I believe that we have the people united behind us in that resolve.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that one feature of the Falkland Island crisis is the clear demonstration of how quickly and effectively the Government can act when they have the political will to do so? Will the Prime Minister now put the same effort, the same commitment and the same resources into ending unemployment?

We are putting every commitment and every effort into ending unemployment, which afflicts the whole of the Western world. This requires not only talking, but the efforts of people themselves to create jobs and work harder.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the veto may prove essential for the future of the British fishing industry? Will she look personally into the question of the common fisheries policy?

I am very much aware of that issue. It is one of the very serious aspects of what happened in the taking of a vote by majority rule on the CAP yesterday. Another issue is the future of New Zealand lamb. We are very much aware of this, but we need time to prepare a proper response.

Is the Prime Minister aware that if majority voting in the Common Market is to be the new rule, it means, almost invariably, especially in relation to the common agricultural policy and the possibility of agreement on a common fisheries policy, that the majority vote will act against British interests? Is the Prime Minister seriously suggesting that, in these circumstances, she would continue to want Britain to be a member of the EEC?

I am suggesting that we do not dash into any hurried conclusions before we have had time to think these things out. I accept entirely that what happened over the voting on the common agricultural policy was extremely serious and without precedent. It is noteworthy that those of us who entered the Community after the 1966 agreement on the Lyuxembourg compromise refrained from voting because we felt that there had been a breach of faith of the terms on which we entered the Community.

During her testing day, will my right hon. Friend draw strength from the fact that those most directly concerned in the Falkland Islands crisis—the men of the Armed Forces and their families—fully understand the issues and the risks involved and are resolute in their will to perform the roles expected of them?

We are very fortunate in the men and women who make up the Armed Forces. They are resolute and courageous. We are very proud of them.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 20 May.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of recent assurances by Treasury Ministers that the large sums of money that are being spent on the task force are in no way having an adverse effect on Government economic policy? When the military action in the South Atlantic is over, therefore, will those same sums of money continue to be spent but on the needs of the homeless, the poor and the unemployed?

The hon. Gentleman has failed to observe one factor. If money from the Contingency Reserve is spent once, it cannot be spent twice.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm the assurance that was given to the House by the Minister with responsibility for sport that the Government will put no pressure on the British football authorities to withdraw from the World Cup? Does she agree that it would be more worth while if, in the event of our being drawn against Argentina, we were to withdraw on the morning of the game, thus putting pressure on FIFA to expel Argentina?

My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport replied to a question on that matter yesterday. It is not our present intention to intervene in the matters of the World Cup or the taking part in the World Cup of teams from Britain.