asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on future appointments to health authorities.

The terms of office of the chairmen and half the members of the regional health authorities end later this year. We are consulting widely on future appointments and considering possible changes to the composition of the authorities. None of the chairmen or members of district health authorities come up for reappointment this year.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Will he do his best to ensure that in future we appoint more people with recent practical medical experience and experience of current patient care to the higher echelons of the boards?

We endeavour always to appoint the right people. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said and also the recommendations that he has put forward for health authorities in his locality.

Is the Minister aware that the North Staffordshire district health authority wants proper representation on the regional health board? Views are put forward only at second hand. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman arrange for all districts to be properly represented in the regions?

We are consulting the local authority associations on the future pattern of local authority representation on the regional health authorities. We hope to make some decisions on that matter in due course to ensure not only that the regions are not too big but that there is proper local authority representation.

Cannot the Tory Party find a Tory in Lewisham to be chairman of the Lewisham district health authority? Why does it have to go as far away as Sevenoaks to find the nearest decent Tory to be chairman of our district health authority?

Our appointments reflect a reasonable political balance. We try to ensure that there is not an excessive number of purely political appointments. I have every confidence in the new chairman of the Lewisham district health authority. Given the history of that authority, I trust that he will have every success in sorting out and solving its problems.

Has the Minister given instructions that there should not be political appointments at district health or regional health authority level? There is a suspicion that he is changing the interpretation of the rules.

We do not make political appointments—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady is interested in analysing the appointments, she will find that those chairmen of district health authorities who have political allegiances come from all parties.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what sum from social security funds was spent on help with fuel bills in the financial years 1978–79 and 1980–81.

The sums spent were about £90 million and £161 million respectively. In addition, in 1978–79 there was expenditure by the Department of Energy of £34 million on the electricity discount scheme.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the latest figures for 1981–82 show that the help that we give with fuel bills is 25 per cent. greater in real terms than that provided in the last year of the Labour Government? In a world recession, in which funds are inevitably short, does that not prove that we accept and understand the need to give help to those in that group?

I confirm what my hon. Friend said. Assistance under those headings rose to about £250 million last year, and in the present year it is likely to rise to about £300 million, which will be a further real increase. In addition, by comparison with the electricity discount scheme, we are giving far more effective help to those who need it.

Will the Minister confirm that the savage increases in gas and electricity prices brought about by the Government mean that, even with extra help, most of those on supplementary benefit have to spend a higher proportion of their income on fuel bills than they had to spend before the Government's measures?

As I said last week in the debate on fuel-direct, given the background of the world increase in energy prices, we cannot totally protect any section of the population. The record that I outlined in my initial answer shows our clear determination to protect as much as possible the least well off in our community.

Will my hon. Friend consider spending the £161 million per year on energy conservation instead of continuing subsidy for energy use?

If I had elaborated my initial answer, I would have included the various steps that we have taken to help families, particularly poor families, to improve home insulation. Therefore, we are also doing as my hon. Friend asks.

How much of that money is due to the 300 per cent. increase in the standing charge for gas since the Conservative Party came to office?

I cannot give the precise figure, but the substantial increases reflect our concern about the general rise in energy charges.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why the Department has requested regional health authorities to record the marital status of women who have given birth.

This is no new request. For more than 30 years marital status has been included in the hospital in-patient inquiry. But a fresh look at the information needs for the National Health Service is being taken by a steering group set up in 1980. It has proposed that marital status should continue to be recorded for the time being, and its proposals have gone out for consultation. Formal recommendations have not yet come to us.

What business is it of the health authorities to pry into the marital status of patients? Without in any way devaluing the moral and social standing of marriage as an institution, will the health authorities confine themselves to health matters?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the information has been supplied for the past 30 years. The lack of sensible statistics in the National Health Service has been criticised by health service managers and by the Royal Commission. I do not see why it should be wrong to ask the committee to consider the matter. When we have seen the recommendations, we shall decide what to do.

Will my hon. Friend confirm or deny reports in the Daily Mail that his hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health recently stated that doctors should be free to prescribe oral contraceptatives to girls under 16, without their parents' knowledge——

Order. I think that that is another question, although I do not know much about it myself.

Why does the National Health Service need any statistics on how many mothers are married and how many are not, if the purpose of the forms is to improve the health of the children?

There was general unease about the quality of information available within the National Health Service. That is why we set up the Körner committee. In the light of the Körner committee's recommendations and of the consultations, we can decide whether to change the system that has been in existence for 30 years, under several Labour Governments.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the work of the committee chaired by Mr. Peter Barclay on social workers.

I am grateful to the committee and the institute for this thorough report. Many of its broad conclusions are consistent with our policies for care in the community. I am seeking urgently the comments of interested bodies and will then consider what action the Government need to take.

I am grateful for that reply. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a need to protect the citizen more adequately against the arbitrary powers of social workers? In particular, has he had time to consider the case of Miss Caroline Pritchard of Liverpool? In that case a social worker took a child into care and the paediatrician involved described it as legalised child stealing.

I have not looked at that case, but I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about it, and also the Gaskin case, which he has raised in the House. Essentially, his questions are for the local authority to answer. I shall look further at the case that he has raised to see whether there is anything that I can add.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public expenditure White Paper shows that appreciably more money, in real terms, will be spent on social workers in future? Will he comment on that? Would it not be better to spend more money on increasing the number of home helps?

There is a need in both respects. The theme of the Barclay report is to harness the efforts of the community in both the statutory and voluntary sense. That is very much in line with the Government's view.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance he has issued to district health authorities on the organisation of midwifery services.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has received any representations about the reorganisation of the midwifery service.

In July 1980 we issued a circular requiring district health authorities to arrange their services into units of management, giving several examples, including the districts' maternity services. I am now awaiting regions' decisions on the pattern of services at district level.

As hospital confinements ensure the highest possible standards of safety for both mother and child, will the Minister ensure that in any reorganisation adequate places will be available for all women to have their babies in hospital? Will he also take steps to ensure that induced births—which have deterred many mothers-to-be from going to hospital—are reduced to the minimum?

Such management decisions will have to be made by the new management structures which the districts will set up. The aim of modern maternity practice is for children to be born in hospital whenever possible. It should also be an aim to pay proper regard to the wishes of mothers about the way in which they wish their children to be born.

Does the Minister agree that, in the organisation of midwifery services, the most important factor is the quality of service for the patient? Does he accept that that is more likely to be achieved by reorganisation based on midwifery divisions than on small geographical areas? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the reorganisation of the NHS will not have a detrimental effect on the midwifery service?

I agree with those general propositions. The advice of the Royal College of Midwifery has been to have midwifery units, and the Government cited midwifery units as an example of the kind of structure that should be set up. I understand that in Pontefract a separate maternity unit has been established. I am sure that district health authorities, which in the end must decide on these matters, will bear in mind all the advice that they are receiving on this subject.

But there is clear evidence that there is no proper pattern. Some areas are moving away from functional organisation, others are using geographical boundaries, and as a result there is utter chaos in the midwifery services. Will the Minister take great care to find out what is happening, because it is important that midwifery should be properly organised for the benefit of mothers and children?

We are seeking to increase local responsibility for the Health Service. Therefore, we have left some discretion to districts to set up a management structure to fit their particular needs. Thus, variety is produced, not chaos. There is plenty of advice that midwifery units are desirable, and we backed up that advice in the circular that was issued.

Is the Minister aware that most right hon. and hon. Members were probably born not in hospital, but at home? Having listened to the Royal College, will he also listen to ARM, the Association of Radical Midwives, and make certain that those women who want to have their babies at home have the ability to do so?

I am sure that it is the desire of all professionals involved that perinatal mortality should be reduced to the absolute minimum and that every possible care should be available to the mother and child during childbirth. I agree with whatever groups put forward the proposition that one must have regard also to the wishes of mothers. Those two aspects should be equated in reaching decisions about future practice in the maternity services.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans for further savings in the social security budget for 1982–83 or 1983–84.

Our plans for savings in the social security budget for 1982–83 and 1983–84 have already been given to the House. The measures taken from 1979 to 1981 were detailed in a written answer to the hon. Member on 28 January. Since then the Government have published the public expenditure White Paper outlining expenditure plans to 1984–85. These savings must be seen against a total social security budget in 1982–83 of some £32 billion, including an uprating in November 1982 of about £3 billion.

But does the Secretary of State appreciate that the figures in the public expenditure White Paper do not tell the House or the country how the savings will be achieved? Does he accept that the savings achieved so far, for example, for a woman becoming widowed today, compared with three years ago, mean a loss of £15 a week, and for a person on average earnings losing his job today, compared with three years ago, a loss in benefit of 13 a week? Are those the kind of savings that are still ahead of us?

I cannot commit myself on future savings, but I have no present plans for further announcements in that regard. The measures taken, and how much they will save, have already been set out for the hon. Gentleman in the answer to which I referred. I am sure that he will recognise that part of the Government's success in bringing down inflation is due to the success that we have had in this area.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the campaign to detect and end abuse of social security payments will continue unabated?

Yes, it will continue. I am sure that the whole House will recognise that it is important, when many people are unquestionably in genuine need, to lake action against those who abuse the system.

Does the Secretary of State agree that in any savings that may be made priority should be given to the just claims of the nurses and the lower paid in the National Health Service? How does he reconcile the despicable behaviour of the Government in allowing the Civil Service unions to go to arbitration, accepting the arbitration award and rejecting the application of the Health Service unions?

I should be happy to debate that matter with the hon. Gentleman, but it does not remotely come under the social security budget and the savings there.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the social security budget is intertwined with the tax income to the Government? Will he give further thought to reversing what appears to be the Government's slightly wobbly position on the 5 per cent. abatement, given that the income from the tax on those benefits will be 10 times as great as the cost to the Exchequer of the increase in the social security budget as it should be increased?

I have already given a commitment to the House that we shall keep the 5 per cent. unemployment abatement under review, and we shall do that.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the trends in medical unemployment.

On the figures available to me, no significant trend of medical unemployment appears to emerge, and I have no evidence of an over-supply of doctors at the moment.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he bear in mind the considerable unmet needs in many of the shortage specialties and the fact that many general practitioners are working longer than they should do and have longer lists than they should have?

I accept, of course, that there are continuing unmet needs in all those areas. The hon. Lady did not mention the hospital service, where, under this Government, the number of doctors employed has been increased by over 1,700. We should like to make advances in other areas. I am glad that we have the support of the Select Committee, which the hon. Lady chairs, for the target number of medical students that we have set. We shall pursue that policy. We shall reach that target as resources in the education service allow.

Why does my right hon. Friend not take more credit for what is being done—not only the 1,000 more doctors, but the 5,000 more medical auxiliaries, and the 8,000 more nurses? Why do we not hear more about that?

We should take full credit. In fact, the figure is 34,000 extra nurses in terms of whole-time equivalents in the NHS. Much of the campaigning that is directed against the Government in this respect overlooks the fact that we have given high priority to and increased spending in real terms on the National Health Service. That spending is showing results, because there are now more people at the sharp end of patient care—more doctors, more medical auxiliaries, and more nurses.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much his Department gave in grants to voluntary organisations in 1978–79 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

In 1978–79 my Department spent £4,445,000 on grants to some 180 organisations under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. Comparable figures for 1981–82 are £8,881,000—a real increase of 33 per cent.—on grants to over 250 organisations. I will circulate the detailed list of these 1981–82 grants in the Official Report.

I thank my hon. Friend for that full and comprehensive reply. It shows that the Government are indeed caring and compassionate and that my hon. Friend is a caring and compassionate Minister. Will he tell the House what safeguards exist and what monitoring there is to ensure that we are receiving value for money?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks.

The hon. Gentleman is embarrassed.

I can tell the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that I am not at all embarrassed. I want to share the congratulations with my other compassionate and caring friends on the Front Bench, many of whom made the decisions for which I am now being given the credit.

Does the Minister accept that the Government's failure to support local authorities has meant that they cannot assist voluntary organisations, as they have done in the past, and that, because of the real fall in wages throughout the country, individuals cannot help in the same way? Does he further accept that the voluntary organisations, because of unemployment and all the other disasters that have taken place under this Government, have far too much to do?

I do not accept any of those comments. The latest figure for local authority help to voluntary organisations relates to 1980–81, when it was £22 million. That represented a real increase of 19 per cent. over the previous year. In answer to the other parts of the hon. Gentleman's question, my impression is that voluntary organisations are getting a great deal of support and are enjoying doing more work of this kind. The Inland Revenue is receiving an increasing number of applications for covenants, and more money is going to charities from individuals.

Is my hon. Friend aware how welcome was the announcement yesterday of the £20,000 grant to the Child Poverty Action Group, which, in its assistance to hon. Members on both sides of the House on matters of child benefit and family support, has set a standard that many other voluntary groups would do well to emulate?

I should make it clear to my hon. Friend that the grant is specifically for the citizens' rights office of the CPAG, not for its campaigning work. I think that that will be understood on both sides of the House.

It is not understood.

That was made clear. I should have been deeply embarrassed if we had not been able to make the grant, because the first thing that I found on my file when I took office was a letter from me to my predecessor urging that we should make the grant.

Is the Minister being honest with the House? Will he tell us how much money is being taken from voluntary organisations in VAT? Does it not more than offset the grant?

All hon. Members are familiar with the problem of VAT and are aware of the extensive discussions on the problem that have taken place between charities and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury. We are sorry that we have not been able to find a solution, but successive packages and measures to help charities in the last two Budgets and Finance Bills are bringing significant additional help.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many beds in the National Health Service are unused for lack of (a) staff, (b) finance and (c) patients.

The information requested is not available centrally, but at any point a considerable number of beds in National Health Service hospitals will not be in use for a variety of reasons.

Is it not the case that the action proposed by certain bodies in the National Health Service to extract an increase in wages over and above any increase in output in the economy will lead to more beds being left empty and an increase in the waiting lists, which were being shortened? Is it not the case that the action is undoubtedly seeking to make use of patients as a form of moral blackmail of the Government?

I agree with the points that have been made by my hon. Friend, in particular his comments about waiting lists. Waiting list numbers have fallen from about 750,000 in March 1979, following the winter of discontent, to fewer than 630,000 on 31 March 1981. It would be a tragedy for patients if that advance and those improvements were now to be put at risk.

If the Secretary of State wants to see peace in the National Health Service, why is he not prepared to let the health unions go to arbitration, because it is tremendously important that, if we are to have an efficient Health Service, it must be staffed by people who know that they are important to the country? The Secretary of State is making it clear to them that he does not give a damn.

That is a total travesty of the position. The Government have not cut the National Health Service, but have increased the real resources that go to the National Health Service by about 6 per cent. We have also increased the amount of money that is available for pay, so that an extra amount can be made available for nurses and midwives. I am sure that that has the support of the House. I hope that the Opposition will also take the opportunity to deplore any industrial action that puts at risk the interests of patients.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that most people will accept that if the National Health Service unions continue to insist upon a pay increase of 12 per cent. it can lead only to more inflation and less of the real growth that provides the resources for the NHS? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition would be well advised to try to sort out about a year in advance which groups have a special case rather than supporting every special case each week?

My hon. Friend is right. We have made a fair and realistic offer to the NHS. Like him, I believe that the 12 per cent. claim is unrealistic.

What is the Secretary of State doing about the effect on unused beds and waiting lists of the acute shortage of qualified theatre sisters and qualified renal nurses? What is he doing about the 7,140 qualified nurses who are now on the dole?

The numbers of people employed in the NHS have increased from 1979 to 1981 by 47,000. That includes a 34,000 increase in nurses. That is a considerable achievement.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received regarding the White Paper on the reorganisation of the industrial injuries scheme; and if he will make a statement.

The White Paper invited comments by 31 March on two of its proposals—special hardship allowance and the ending of double payment for industrial injuries by means of benefits and damages claims. The 28 replies received are being studied and we shall announce our conclusions in due course. In recent weeks we have also received a smaller number of other comments on the White Paper proposals as a whole.

Is it not a fact that amidst all the compassion that the Tories trot out day by day at the Dispatch Box, they have introduced a White Paper that proposes to get rid of hospital treatment allowance and industrial death benefit for the widows of those killed at work? The White Paper proposes reducing payments for those who receive disablement benefit of less than 10 per cent. and stopping any other payments from social security to those who are receiving common law payments. In other words, those people will be knocked off. Is it not time that the Government faced up to the representations that they are receiving from the trade unions and others and withdrew this wicked White Paper on the reorganisation of the industrial injuries scheme?

The White Paper followed a long period of consultation and represents what is virtually a consensus throughout the country on how the industrial injuries benefit scheme can be brought up to date. [Interruption.] The document that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is waving is a distortion of the facts and has been answered point by point. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper for himself. He will see in it that we are directing resources to the most seriously injured people in our community.

Will the Minister compose himself and tell the House what is the estimate of the number of gainers and losers under the proposals in the White Paper?

If the hon. Gentleman will look at the financial consequences in the White Paper, he will see a saving of about £54 million, which is being reallocated, and will be increased to £61 million. The people who are losing are those who suffer injuries such as cuts and bruises at work and receive average payments of £9 We are allocating resources so that, for example, someone who loses a leg will have an increased benefit of about £400.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the proposal in the Kirby report to establish a national advisory committee on health education officer development and training.

I accept that there may be a need for an appropriately constituted advisory committee to take overall responsibility for the future oversight of health education officer development and training. But, I think, its form and its relationships with the Department, the service and the Health Education Council, will best be decided in the light of the outcome of the current reviews of the National Training Council and the National Staff Committee.

That is a disappointing reply. Is the Minister aware that the Government's contribution—not just in financial terms—to health education leaves a great deal to be desired? Does he agree that the health education officer has the key role to play in health education? Will he therefore implement the report's recommendations as a matter of urgency?

We recognise the importance of the role of the health education officer. That is why his post has been excluded from the management cost exercise. There are 450 health education officers in post. It would not be doing a service to the hon. Gentleman's beliefs to rush in until we have finished considering the reports that I have mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many National Health Service patients are treated in private acute hospitals.

The latest available figures show that in England in 1980 there were 23,700 in-patient treatments and 116,500 out-patient attendances under contractual arrangements made by health authorities with institutions outside the NHS. Separate information for private acute hospitals is not available.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that reply indicates how foolish it would be for the Labour Party to decide to scrap private medicine, since private medicine is a contributor to, rather than a burden upon, the National Health Service? Is it not the case that all the costs of private sector use of National Health Service facilities are refunded by the private sector? If so, should we not be asking for more partnership between the two rather than having ideological conflict?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It would be foolish and impracticable to suggest the ending of private medicine in this country. I agree that the private and public sectors have a great deal to contribute in terms of assisting each other, and both are additions to the health care of the country. As regards income, it is estimated that pay beds alone will contribute an extra £52 million to the National Health Service next year.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the private sector acts as a drain on the National Health Service? Is this not confirmed by the fact that the Minister's predecessor said that he was keeping under review the possibility of levying the private sector to provide training facilities? Is it not a disgrace that the Government are encouraging private clinics, such as the Yorkshire clinic near my constituency, that act as a drain on the National Health Service without making any contribution to patient care?

My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) is correct in what he said a moment ago. We ensure that the private sector pays the full cost to the Health Service of any facilities that it uses. We are anxious to develop the partnership between the two sectors and the mutual benefit that each can derive. We are considering ways in which the private sector can improve its contribution to the training of staff. The general case made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is not sustained by the facts.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much the supplementary benefit rate for children under five years rose in real terms (a) between 1974 and 1979 and (b) between 1979 and the present date.

Between July 1974 and November 1979, the real value of the scale rate fell by 3p. In November 1980 the under-five scale rate was replaced by an under-11 scale rate. This led to a real value increase in the scale rate provision for a child under five between November 1979 and March 1982 of £1·22.

Will my hon. Friend note that even the Socialist-inspired Child Poverty Action Group felt compelled to congratulate the Conservative Government on this real increase, which is in such contrast to the poor performance of the Labour Government?

Yes, I had noted that and I am pleased that we were able to make that improvement.

Will the Minister tell the House how many planted questions he has answered today?

I am not aware of having planted any questions. All I can say is that they are growing very well.

Can the Minister tell us the full effect of the change in the scale rates from five rates to three? Is he aware that the selectivity of the question brought about my hon. Friend's riposte? Can the Minister give the same figures for 11-year-olds?

The position will be very nearly as good for the 11 to 12-year-olds. I can give the figures but I do not intend to spend too much time leafing through my papers. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the main changes were to remove the under-five scale rate and replace it with the under-11 scale rate, which led to that effect. At the same time we abolished the 11–12 scale rate and included it in a higher figure. That is why the 11 to 12-year-olds have also done very well.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many men and women aged 55 to 60 years and 60 to 65 years are unemployed and looking for work, but receive no State benefits, because they have exhausted their entitlement to unemployment benefit and, because of their spouse's income, are not eligible for supplementary benefit.

At November 1980, the latest date for which information is available, 11,000 married unemployed claimants aged 55 to 59 had exhausted their title to unemployment benefit and were not receiving supplementary benefit. The corresponding figure for the 60 to 64 age group was 31,600. No analysis is available of the reasons for the non-payment of supplementary benefit in these cases.

Will the Minister accept that many people are suffering considerable hardship because their spouse's income is marginally above the supplementary benefit rate and therefore they receive no benefit? Is the Minister aware that these people are condemned to live on very low incomes until reaching retirement age and that they do not get a proper pension because they have been unable to contribute to the earnings-related pensions scheme?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that when the contributory rights expire and supplementary benefit comes into play it has, of necessity, to be means-tested. The requirements and resources of married couples are always aggregated for supplementary benefit purposes. This reflects their mutual responsibility to each other. Currently, only the husband may make a claim. The requirements and resources of a couple living as husband and wife are also aggregated, so that they are treated neither more nor less advantageously than a married couple.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 11 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 have further meetings later today. This evening I shall be dining with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing belief that the Argentine Government are deliberately, to their own advantage, trying to spin out the negotiations over the Falkland Islands that are at present being conducted through the Secretary-General of the United Nations? Can she say what has happened in those negotiations since the Foreign Secretary's statement last Friday?

The negotiations will take a little time. I must make it clear that the fact that we are negotiating does not close any military options at all. The Secretary-General is pursuing the negotiations vigorously. He has seen our ambassador to the United Nations once or twice each day and also, separately, the representative of the Argentine Government.

Since these discussions under the auspices of the Secretary-General are obviously of the very greatest importance, and since the outcome may be of the very greatest importance in the dispute, will the right hon. Lady give a clear undertaking that the House of Commons will have the chance to judge those propositions before the Government takes any final decision?

We frequently have debates on the Falkland Islands issue, but the Government must be free and, I believe, are inherently free, to make the best judgment that they can in the situation and, finally, to be accountable to the House of Commons for that judgment.

Of course the right hon. Lady's Government is responsible to the House for what they do. We are asking for something different. These are important discussions. As the right hon. Lady indicated in her reply a moment ago, important principles are involved. The Government have made some very wise departures from previous utterances on many of these matters, but the House of Commons has the right to make a judgment on this matter before any decision is taken by the Government that would enlarge the conflict. I ask the right hon. Lady and her Government, who have been very leniently treated by the House on this matter, for that assurance.

Why did the right hon. Gentleman not meet the Prime Minister?

Because the House has the right to make the judgment. That is why I am asking the right hon. Lady to give the House the chance to judge the outcome of the discussions that are being held under the auspices of the Secretary-General.

We have to take our decisions on those discussions. I agree that they are very important, but it is an inherent jurisdiction of the Government to negotiate and to reach decisions. Afterwards, the House of Commons can pass judgment on the Government.

I ask the right hon. Lady to consider this matter afresh. It could be that a decision on these matters made by the Government could utterly frustrate and destroy their outcome. Therefore, I again ask the right hon. Lady to give the House of Commons the chance to make a judgment before the Government themselves make the final judgment.

No, Sir. The Government have this responsibility, will shoulder that responsibility and will stand before this House and defend their decision.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 11 May.

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

With regard to the Falkland Islands, unlike the Commonwealth and the United States, our Community partners, despite their public utterances, seem to have been flapping around like decapitated chickens. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, unless we have their robust, continuing and wholehearted support, it will go ill with the Community within this country and we might be forced to move against the Community, which neither she nor I would wish to do?

I must point out to my hon. Friend that the European Community has given us staunch support right from the beginning of the Falklands campaign. It gave us staunch support by imposing an import ban. It extended it. There are no military exports from the European Community to the Argentine. There are no new export credits, and at present an import ban is in force. The Community will make a decision by the end of this week on whether it should extend that import ban and I hope and believe that it will.

While the Prime Minister is considering these matters and the exercise of a prerogative that lies in the hands of a Government, will she bear in mind that at no time has this House been informed, or been invited to accept, that there should be any other sequel to the repossession of the Falkland Islands than the immediate and unconditional restoration of sole British administration?

I am fully aware of the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made. Sovereignty cannot be changed by invasion. I am very much aware that the rights of the Falkland Islanders were to be governed through the means of a legislative and executive council, and that is what democracy is all about.

If my right hon. Friend has time today, will she watch a recording of last night's "Panorama" programme? Is she aware that for the most part, but not all, it was an odious, subversive, travesty in which Michael Cockerell and other BBC reporters dishonoured the right to freedom of speech in this country? Is it not time that such people accepted the fact that if they have these rights, they also have responsibilities?

I share the deep concern that has been expressed on many sides, particularly about the content of yesterday evening's "Panorama" programme. I know how strongly many people feel that the case for our country is not being put with sufficient vigour on certain—I do not say all—BBC programmes. The chairman of the BBC has assured us, and has said in vigorous terms, that the BBC is not neutral on this point, and I hope that his words will be heeded by the many who have responsibilities for standing up for our task force, our boys, our people and the cause of democracy.

Does not the Prime Minister agree that one of the virtues of a political democracy is that radio and television should be independent from constant Government control and interference? Would it not be useful if some of her right hon. and hon. Friends stopped their constant intimidation of the BBC? Perhaps the Prime Minister would take that hint as well.

It is our great pride that the British media are free. We ask them, when the lives of some of our people may be at stake through information or through discussions that can be of use to the enemy—[Interruption.]—to take that into account in their programmes. It is our pride that we have no censorship. That is the essence of a free country. But we expect the case for freedom to be put by those who are responsible for doing so.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 May.

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

In view of what has happened in the preceding weeks, will the Prime Minister give her views on the wisdom of selling arms to non-NATO and unstable countries?

Each and every request for the sale of arms is dealt with separately, and it will continue to be done in that way.

During the day, will my right hon. Friend indicate the extent to which the Government appreciate the way in which Australia and New Zealand have imposed trade sanctions on Argentina and the manner in which those sanctions were imposed, totally, speedily and unconditionally?

Gladly. The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have been absolutely magnificent from the day when the Falkland Islands were invaded. From the very outset they have recognised that pressure must be brought to bear and that the Falkland Islanders wish to have the right to live in their own way under a Government of their own choice.

Who is there, from Mexico City to Cape Horn, who supports what the task force is doing?

If the hon. Gentleman looks even at some of the resolutions——

Answer the question.

—of the Organisation of American States, he will see that a number of them condemned the use of force. Some of them may well believe in Argentine sovereignty, but they have totally and utterly condemned the use of force. In any case, I am circumscribed not by the views of those countries but by the interests of our people.

I thank the Prime Minister for her robust remarks earlier. During the course of her busy day, has she been made aware of the rising tide of anger among our constituents at the media treatment and presentation of enemy propaganda and the defeatist views of an unrepresentative minority? Is she aware that an increasing number of people are telling us that this amounts to a sort of treachery?

Our people are very robust and the heart of Britain is sound. I hope that individually they will make their views directly known to the BBC, by their letters and telephone calls.

Will the Prime Minister comment on the reports in The Sunday Times two days ago that last Thursday Fleet Street was promised an announcement by Mr. Ian McDonald at six o'clock that two Harrier jets had gone down but that it was delayed until nine o'clock because it was polling day and there would have been an effect on the vote?

That reason is totally and utterly untrue. Does it not occur to the hon. Gentleman that there are times when we must try to get the names of those who have been killed and inform their relatives before people hear that these things have happened? In addition, there may well be operational reasons why one does not tell the enemy immediately of every loss.

Will my right hon. Friend try to study, at some time today, the press reports of the demonstration that took place in London on Sunday and which was graced by the chairman of the Labour Party and by the right hon. Member for Bristol South-East (Mr. Benn)? Will she especially examine press reports to the effect that certain people at the demonstration were shouting "Victory for Argentina"? Does she not agree that this crisis has thrown up some strange bedfellows when the extreme Left wing of politics in this country is supporting the Fascist junta in Argentina?