asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to adopt the title civil protection for civil defence.

We are considering possible alternative titles, including civil protection, and will announce a decision in due course.

Has my hon. Friend initiated any research into the public perception of the term civil defence and, if so, what were its findings?

Yes. Last year we introduced some attitudinal research data on the awareness and understanding of civil defence. This has been most helpful in the preparation of the revised publicity material, which we hope to be able to issue in the course of this year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the last investigation took place where visitors to the United Kingdom were recorded as not having re-embarked; how many such visitors were investigated and what kind of evidence was accepted as proof that a particular visitor was no longer in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Very recently, since the investigation of apparent overstaying by persons subject to immigration control, including visitors, is a continuous but selective process. Acceptable evidence of departure, in the absence of a computer record, would vary from case to case.

In view of the concern that visitors coming into this country are not checked out, despite the modern computer aids available, will my hon. and learned Friend reinvestigate the matter, because the crime of overstaying is important and serious and needs attention?

I must correct my hon. Friend. It is not true to say that those who are admitted as visitors are not checked out. Three hundred thousand passengers who were landed last year were landed on check-out conditions. Our records confirm embarkation in 95 per cent. of cases. It is a great mistake to imagine that all the others have not left. Experience shows that all too often when the case of someone who is not recorded on computer is followed up it is discovered that he has left.

Will the Minister confirm that overstaying among visitors is not a problem? Indeed, his figures show that only 187 of the 18,000 people refused permission to enter last year absconded. Will he also confirm that the Home Office has taken over part of the Post House hotel at Heathrow to accommodate those who are awaiting interview, often for days, and that that problem would be greatly improved if more than eight interpreters were employed at Heathrow to interview visitors?

I cannot answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. However, I shall write to him and give him what information I can. On the first part of the question, one must neither exaggerate the extent of the problem nor minimise it. I must point out that no fewer than 1,280 overstayers were investigated and indentified last year.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that without a complete check on re-embarkation it is impossible to know the size of the problem of overstaying? In view of his recent written answer to me, which showed that only 5 per cent. of visitors are so recorded, does he not think that it is time we took firmer measures to ensure the re-embarkation of those who enter as visitors?

The number of people involved is the main problem. Six million people were admitted as visitors in 1984, and millions of people go through immigration control as they leave the country, and no matter how diligent the immigration officer is, he cannot always spot that someone who passes him was admitted to the country on check-out conditions. We have to be selective and follow up the cases where we have reason to believe that there has been a breach of the law and overstaying.

How many of those who were refused leave to enter but given temporary admission actually absconded?

I do not have figures before me now, but they have been provided before when questions on that specific point were raised. I am prepared to write to the hon. Gentleman to give him the information that he requires.

Will it ever be possible to deal with the problem of overstaying without introducing a system based upon identity cards?

Many people in this country would be very reluctant to see the introduction of identity cards. The decision to abolish the use of identity cards was received with loud acclaim and we would have to be very careful before reintroducing them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his consideration of advice to prison authorities and guidance to medical officers given by his Department, following his consideration of the case of Kevin Capenhurst.

We shall be issuing additional guidance in the near future to governors and medical officers of all Prison Department establishments. This will remind them of the need to give prompt consideration to the possibility of special remission of sentence under the royal prerogative of mercy for prisoners who are suffering from terminal illness or are bedridden or similarly incapacitated. I shall place a copy of that guidance in the Library when it is issued.

I thank the Minister for that helpful reply and I am glad that at last some step is to be taken in this matter. However, is the Minister aware that a reminder to medical officers is seldom sufficient to achieve the required result, and that what is needed is that the Minister himself should be informed when one of the very few prisoners who are terminally ill is refused permission to go home or elsewhere to die in dignity? When will he institute instructions that he should be informed about such cases?

I should like to stress two points to the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose interest in these matters is well known to me. First, the guidance note which will be sent out will make some alterations which will be of assistance to ensure that these cases are dealt with even more effectively in future than they have been.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Legislative Council of Hong Kong on the proposed Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order.

The Legislative Council made representations asking for an endorsement about visits in the British National (Overseas) passport and it asked that British citizenship should be granted to former service men in Hong Kong and to British dependent territories citizens who were not ethnically Chinese. My right hon. Friend announced the Government's response yesterday in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan).

Is the Minister aware that China understandably refused to grant citizenship to non-Chinese residents in Hong Kong because they are a British responsibility? Does he accept that it is outrageous and unreasonable for the Government to refuse—as the Home Secretary has refused—British citizenship to that group of people? We simply cannot use people when it suits our purpose and then discard them when it does not. Is he aware that these 11,500 people will become stateless unless the Government change their mind? May we have some reconsideration of the Government's decision?

The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points. First, the Chinese Government have confirmed that non-Chinese who meet the legal requirements under the Chinese nationality law may apply for Chinese nationality and that such cases will be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. Giving the non-ethnic Chinese British citizenship would not secure for them what they want—the right of abode in Hong Kong. They will not be left stateless. All British dependent territory citizens will be entitled to BNO status, and those who do not apply and have no other nationality will become BOCs, a status which will also be available to their children and grandchildren.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the category of British nationality known as British dependent territory citizenship is a fundamentally unsatisfactory method of dealing with the problem, and that after 1997 the numbers in that category will be so small that it might well be desirable to abolish the category and appropriate them within the category of British citizenship?

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the decisions that are being taken are right. I repeat that no one will be left without a citizenship. Those who are now BDTCs will be able to apply for the new status of BNO. If they do not apply, again they will not be left without citizenship, because they will be entitled to BOC status.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the progress in setting up neighbourhood watch schemes in shire counties.

In December 1985 there were some 3,850 neighbourhood watch schemes operating in shire counties, which was more than double the number recorded in January 1985.

That is indeed good news, but does my hon. Friend agree that chief constables are probably wise to proceed cautiously with neighbourhood watch schemes, perhaps on a pilot scheme basis, in order to ensure that they have the wholehearted support of the general public, without which the schemes will not only fail but could be an additional drain on police resources, which are scarce? Where the schemes are proven to be effective, will he consider increasing police establishments to enable more schemes to be set up, because neighbourhood watch schemes may help prevent crime and catch criminals, but they require additional policemen?

I am very sensitive to my hon. Friend's point. Those neighbourhood watch schemes which are stimulated from within the community, arising perhaps from consultative councils such as that which is being established at Eastleigh in my hon. Friend's constituency, may well not be as manpower intensive for the police as those which are established under police intiation. However, I accept my hon. Friend's point that, like so many other police activities, all should be assessed in relation to police establishments.

Does the Minister accept that neighbourhood watch schemes may have considerable value in some areas, but that the public are provided with far better protection if people living in rural areas can see the occasional policeman walking through their village or small town? Will he take steps to ensure that chief constables are aware of their responsibility to have more policemen on foot in the shire counties?

The hon. and learned Gentleman should be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has invited chief police officers in all counties and, indeed, in the metropolitan areas, to make representations in relation to establishment, and he is currently considering many applications. Neighbourhood watch schemes and all the other activities that are mounted around those schemes have resulted in a welcome reduction in burglaries and I hope that that will be applicable in rural areas as well.

May I put the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) in a slightly different way? Is my hon. Friend sure that insufficient numbers of policemen are not holding up the introduction of the schemes in many places?

We are concerned at having sufficient police available, amongst other things, to enable us to stimulate crime prevention measures such as neighbourhood watch schemes. There is a role here for special constables, which we are currently examining.

Is the Minister aware of the excellent neighbourhood watch scheme set up in the Northumbria police force area, which, along with the metro transport system, the new metro shopping development and the setting up of regional drug squads, has placed considerable pressure on manning levels in that police force? When will the Home Secretary reply to the request from the Northumbria police authority in letters dated 22 January and 15 April for an increase of 75 in the manning of the Northumbria police force?

I am aware that Northumbria, amongst others, has made an application, and I know that each of those applications must be, carefully considered. We shall respond to that application, as to the others, as soon as possible.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the progress which has been made in Shrewsbury with the neighbourhood watch scheme? Is his Department encouraging chief police officers to expand the special constabulary and to link them in with the neighbourhood watch schemes? That would increase the number of foot patrols in shire areas.

We are requiring all chief constables to take a view of all their resources. My hon. Friend will be aware that the numbers in the special constabulary are entirely a matter for the individual chief constable. There is little doubt that they would be a useful adjunct to crime prevention activities.

Will the Minister take into account the fact that there ought to be neighbourhood watch schemes in the counties of Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Berkshire and all those areas where the Americans have bases? We need people to keep an eye on the criminal activities of President Reagan and those who allowed him to bomb Libya and other countries—

Order. That is very wide of the question.

If the Government will not keep an eye on him, somebody has to do it.

I suspect that that is a little outwith the neighbourhood over on which I was answering questions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now intends to introduce legislation to reform the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 as it relates to the anonymity of those accused of rape.

We have this matter under consideration. There is a strong case for removing the accused person's right to anonymity, but a final decision has not yet been reached.

Although I welcome my hon. Friend's answer, does he agree that as the Act now stands suspected rapists, alone of any criminals, enjoy anonymity? It is inequitable that anonymity, which should rightly be given to the victim, should also be given to a suspected person, especially when there is a danger of that suspected person committing other rapes, since he has not been arrested.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

The Minister may be aware that I brought in the original Bill to help rape victims, and I sympathise with the Government's view. I wonder whether the best way to approach this matter is to preserve anonymity for men accused of rape, because it is such an appalling crime, but to identify men accused of it when they have committed another crime. Would that not be the best solution?

It is a halfway house. It is true that rape is a grave crime, but so, too, are murder, attempted murder, buggery, and assaults on young children, all of which lead to the identification of the defendant. The right hon. Gentleman will have read what the Criminal Law Revision Committee said about the provisions for the anonymity of defendants and its detailed criticisms. We must bear in mind the committee's findings as well as the right hon. Gentleman's comments when considering this matter.

When will my hon. Friend announce his decision? Will he give us an assurance that it will be made in a much shorter time than the decision about dog licences?

I have responsibility for a number of interesting matters but, happily, dog licences are not among them. I know what my hon. Friend means and I can assure him that a decision will be made in such a fashion that, if it is favourable to remove anonymity, that could be included in the Criminal Justice Bill next Session.

Given that there is no centrally held evidence that the anonymity provisions of this Act—which started life as my private Member's Bill—have in any way inhibited police inquiries, will the Minister at least undertake to consult widely on any plans to remove the anonymity provision for the accused man? Is the Minister prepared to advance the time at which the complainant woman gets the protection of anonymity to when that complaint is made?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has previous convictions on this subject—[Laughter.]—and I shall want to have a word with him about that in due course. I take his point about the anonymity of the victim. Recent events in Ealing have revealed to us how unsatisfactory it is that anonymity for the victim comes into play only at the point when an arrest is made, although we saw in that case that the damage can be done before then. I shall want to look into that matter and to have a word with the hon. Gentleman about it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what increased provision has been made for police training in respect of additional discretionary powers to be conferred on the police under public order legislation.

The Department is in close touch with chief officers of police about the training implications of the Public Order Bill, but clearly this will depend on the final form of the Bill when it completes its parliamentary passage.

But why force these powers on the police in the first place? They do not want them. They bring the police into party politics. The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has asked for similar powers to be taken from him. If the Government are so insistent, why not do this through the democratically elected local authorities, as in Scotland?

The hon. Lady will bear in mind that the Bill emanated from a review by a commission, the publication of a White Paper and from substantial discussion of the need to modernise the Public Order Act 1936. The Bill also has the approval of the House and is making progress. I look forward to the Bill continuing to make progress in the House.

Bearing in mind that at times 7 per cent. of the Metropolitan police force are on duty at stalag Wapping to facilitate the distribution of what Mr. Rupert Murdoch laughingly describes as his newspapers, and bearing in mind also the 17 per cent. crime clear-up rate in London, what additional resources are the Government providing for the Metropolitan police to assist them in carrying out their proper duty of coping with the record crime wave in London?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the requirements placed upon the Metropolitan police to deal with public order matters are very broad and wide. They are not confined to what is happening at Wapping. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that there is a substantial requirement for public order policing, whether it be at international soccer matches at Wembley or protecting persons from difficulties while processions and marches pass through the City. I assure him also that the request of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for increased manpower is currently receiving very substantial consideration.

Are not the Government putting twice as much, in real terms, into police resources to enable them to do their job as the last Labour Government provided for the police? The Opposition Front Bench spokesman does nothing but attack the police in vicious and unpleasant ways. In doing so, he is in line with the former Labour-controlled Greater London council and the Labour police committees that are to be found throughout the metropolis.

My hon. Friend is quite right. By the increase from £1·1 billion to £2·8 billion this Government have demonstrated their determination to improve police resources. The thoughts of the right hon. Gentleman made the front page of The Times the other day. When he talks about police firmness and effectiveness, he might at least start by advising those members of his party who are in control of London boroughs that they should take a more effective view of the police than they do now.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce a scheme to compensate police officers or their families injured or killed in the course of their duties.

Special provision is already made in the police pensions scheme for police officers who retire as the result of injury on duty and for the dependants of those who die from such injuries.

How can the Minister sit on the Treasury Bench with equanimity when the Government of which he is a member pursue policies which in recent times have led to an unparalleled increase in crime and violence in our society? How can he sit on that Bench and expect our policemen and policewomen to carry out his laws when they have to rely, if they are injured, on completely unsatisfactory pension schemes and completely unsatisfactory compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? The Minister knows that it is high time that something was done about it.

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the pension scheme provisions that are made for the police are substantial. The widow of a police officer who dies as a result of injuries on duty is entitled to a pension of 45 per cent. of her husband's average pensionable pay. If he died in special circumstances, such as attempting to save life, his widow's pension would be 50 per cent. of her husband's pensionable pay. The hon. Gentleman is aware that many other substantial benefits are available to deal with the situation. However, may I take him firmly to task for believing that we should be any the less committed to ensuring that there is proper policing of public disorders, purely because there is the real difficulty of dealing with officers who, on many occasions, face substantial injury as a result of looking after the public peace on behalf of many right hon. and hon. Members and the people outside Parliament.

Will my hon. Friend, when looking into the matter of police compensation, consider the dramatic changes that are occurring, with the growth of terrorism, in the tasks of our police and others working in the public service?

I share my hon. Friend's concern, and I know that compensation for injuries, which do not necessarily lead to retirement, is a matter for current discussion between the Police Federation and my Department.

Will the Minister examine the long delays in settling criminal injuries compensation cases? For instance, a policeman injured in the Toxteth riot had not received settlement after three years. Is that situation satisfactory?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that every case that comes before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board will be most carefully and speedily dealt with, because we all recognise the importance of ensuring that proper payment is made.

Will my hon. Friend assure me that the malicious damage that has occurred to the homes of police officers in certain parts of the country will be properly considered? Will compensation be given to officers who lose not only their homes but their belongings as well?

I would like from my hon. Friend details of that occurrence. It may be that it occurred in a part of the United Kingdom with which I am not very familiar.

What about compensation for families of police officers in Northern Ireland who have died at the hands of paramilitary groups? Why do the Government not interfere with the sourcing of money to fund those groups? What can the Minister say about what happened in The Hague yesterday, when the Home Secretary was approached by Mr. Alan Dukes, the Irish Justice Minister, who asked the British Government to act to ban kidnap insurance as it affects Ulster? What will the Government do about these matters—sit on their backside as usual?

The first thing that the hon. Gentleman might do is to vote in favour of the prevention of terrorism legislation. He has the effrontery to attack the Government for doing what they have done, when, consistently, the Labour party has voted against that. On the question of my right hon. Friend's motives in consulting other security Ministers on the matter, the hon. Gentleman has made remarks that are scarcely worth even ignoring.

Will my hon. Friend consider the plight of police drivers who, in answering 999 calls or hoax calls, are involved in car accidents? As a result, many of them are off work for many weeks, and some, unfortunately, die. Will the Minister guarantee that payment for the relatives of those police officers, who were doing their best to protect our country, will be speeded up, because many of them are still waiting for such payment?

I assure my hon. Friend that an officer who retires as a result of an injury on duty—and that includes response to calls as described by my hon. Friend—is entitled to an ill-health pension, an injury pension, and an injury gratuity. If totally disabled, he is also entitled to a lump sum payment of five times his pensionable pay.

Does the Minister accept that his miserable and evasive replies on this question demonstrate that the Government have no concern for the police other than in words? Is it not a fact that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the private insurance pension schemes available for the police are grossly inadequate for many of the injuries and deaths that occur? Does he not agree that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board takes far too long and delivers far too little?

I understand that when the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) seeks to try to reassert his new-found interest in protecting the police he is looking for ways and means of doing so. I assure him that this Government have done a lot to improve police pay and conditions. I accept that there may be a case for further improvement, but he will recognise that, in relation to public service provision, that which is now available to the police service represents the top that can be paid.

Is the Minister aware, following the question of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), that previously in the House the Prime Minister has agreed with me that the ransom insurance that exists in this country encourages kidnap and ransom? In the light of the Prime Minister's answer, can the Minister say why nothing has been done to—

Order. That is very wide of the subject, but the Minister may answer the question.

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I should like to invite my right hon. Friend to write to the hon. Gentleman about that provision.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to encourage the public to use the new telephone lines to Customs drugs investigators.

Customs and Excise has already taken steps to encourage the public to use the new Freefone facilities. There was a press launch on 7 April, posters and leaflets have been distributed; and all Customs regional offices have instructions to publicise the facilities. In the first 11 days of operation 353 calls were received, and some very good leads have been established.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Are there any plans to publicise the scheme by using posters in post offices? Many members of the public go into post offices, and the use of such posters might contribute even more to the success of the scheme.

There have been negotiations between Customs and the Post Office. At first they appeared unpromising, because the Post Office initially seemed to want to impose a fee to display the posters. This morning I discussed the matter with the chairman of the Post Office. I hope that more positive counsel will be given to those conducting the negotiations.

It is all right for the Under-Secretary of State to talk about involving the general public with a special telephone line, but when will the Government reinstate the Customs officers they have sacked since 1979 and really do something about that problem?

The hon. Gentleman will have to find another basis for his outrage, because some 500 extra preventive staff—[Interruption.] That was not an invitation to show further outrage. A further 500 preventive staff are to be recruited in the period April 1985 to April 1987.

Although I welcome the scheme, does my hon. Friend agree that it will come to nothing if Customs officers are not placed where they can track down the places from which drugs are smuggled, especially in Bombay? Will my hon. Friend report on the Government's efforts to get Customs inspectors there?

It is troubling that so much of the heroin arriving in this country has been dispatched from India. The proportion last year was 49·1 per cent. of all heroin seized. The trends in the first three months of this year show that perhaps as much as two thirds of the heroin seized by Customs has been dispatched from India. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary discussed those matters with the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of India during his recent visit. I hope that the good level of co-operation that has been established between the law and order services in Britain and those in India will be furthered by the placement of drug liaison officers, who have done so much to cut the trade in heroin between Pakistan and the United Kingdom.

What controls of that kind have applied at United States military bases in Britain?

United States military bases are under the control of internal United States security services, which take action against personnel on bases who are found dealing with drugs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a foreign element in an increasing number of cases coming before the courts, which shows the importance of the Government liaising with foreign Governments to stamp out the supply of drugs at its source?

That is absolutely right. That is why we take so seriously the bilateral relations that we have with a wide range of countries which produce drugs which are exported to the United Kingdom. That is also why we take seriously Britain's role as chairman of the Pompidou group of Ministers in Europe, which is concerned with drugs. International co-operation on drugs is not an option, but a necessity.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the admission to the United Kingdom of elected representatives from other countries who belong to Fascist parties.

Cases are considered individually in accordance with the immigration rules.

If it was right for the Home Secretary to prevent an American from coming to Britain recently—and I believe that the Home Secretary was absolutely right—why should elected representatives of Fascist parties, for example, those elected in France and one Nazi elected in Israel, be allowed to come to Britain to spread their racial mischief and poison?

Every member of the Government abhors racism, but to prevent anyone coming here just because he belongs to a party to which racist views are attributed does not seem to be justifiable. Clearly it would be another matter if he were coming here to propound racist views. Any question of excluding M. Le Pen would have to be considered in the light of the circumstance prevailing at the time and would have to take account of the fact that he enjoys certain immunities and privileges by virtue of being a Member of the European Parliament. MEPs are not liable to detention in a member state while the Assembly is in session; nor can MEPs be hindered when travelling to or from the Assembly.

While I would not wish to be associated with the point that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has made, will my hon. and learned Friend nevertheless consider the fact that it was an election by proportional representation, which seems to encourage the election of people with extremist views to Parliament?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to bring that to the attention of all of us and point out one of the follies that would result from the introduction of proportional representation in this country.

Is the Minister aware of the underlying Fascist influence on events taking place in Northern Ireland, and that already members of a Fascist organisation have appeared in court in Northern Ireland on charges related to violence? Will he assess the relationship between that Fascist party and parties that are represented in this House?

This question is directed to the admission of people to the United Kingdom. The matter raised by the hon. Gentleman does not bear on that problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what detection equipment will be available to police and fire services and local authorities to monitor the presence of toxic chemicals in the event of terrorist use of chemical weapons or materials.

It would not be in the interests of security to disclose details of the equipment which might be deployed to combat terrorist activity.

While I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he agrees that, in the light of state-sponsored terrorism and the fact that weapons of this kind are becoming much more sophisticated, the action taken in the last week or two has been valuable in dealing with the matter? Does he further agree that it is important to see that we are equipped to deal with such action properly and effectively should it ever happen?

I think my hon. Friend is right to say that in the present climate of Government-backed terrorism every possible contingency should be covered, and I wish to give my hon. Friend the assurance that contingency plans exist for dealing with a whole variety of possible terrorist activities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the likely savings during 1986–87 from contracting out of services by the prison authorities.

The cost of services contracted out by the prison department in 1984–85—the latest financial year for which figures are available—was £55 million. Because most of the work has been contracted out for a number of years, we cannot provide a sensible estimate of the savings involved.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the use of more contracted-out services should not only lead to more savings but reduce the likelihood of industrial disputes?

As a general principle, I am sure that there is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. He will know of the special difficulties in the prison service, part of which is that a number of prison services are provided for the benefit of the regime by the prisoners themselves.

Can the Minister say what savings have been made by allowing 49 prison officers' houses in Culcheth, Warrington to stand empty for the last five years?

Not without notice, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for England and Wales, what was the number of burglaries in 1985 which were notified to the police but which were not cleared up.

The estimated number of offences of burglary in England and Wales recorded by the police in 1985 but not cleared up is 616,000. Because an offence may be recorded and cleared up in different years, it is not possible to give an exact figure.

Is that figure not absolutely incredible, disgraceful and disgusting? Has the Minister seen the video produced by the Labour party, which shows that in our campaign we put people first? We will put more police on the beat to protect the people on the streets and in their homes.

I think that there is a career in the music hall for the hon. Gentleman if he thinks that such stuff will be taken seriously. If he is interested in videos and in the credibility of the Labour party, he should look at the GLC-funded video which ended with the words,

"Communities must rebel."

On a more sober note, does my hon. Friend recall the Prime Minister's suggestion to insurance companies some months ago that they should be prepared to offer discounts on premiums in return for the installation of burglar alarms and other protection? Has he any indication from insurance companies that they have attended to the matter, and is he keeping in contact with them with a view to achieving what my right hon. Friend suggested?

Yes. On an equally sober note, two insurance companies are already doing so, which is very good news.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 April.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall attend a state banquet given by Their Majesties the King and Queen of Spain.

Has the Prime Minister had time to reconsider the statement that she made in the House last Tuesday to the effect that the Americans would choose the type of weapons that they would use on aircraft taking off from British bases? If she has had time to reconsider that, does she adhere to the statement that she made on Tuesday?

I made it perfectly clear on Tuesday that we had set down very strict criteria for the use of F11 1s from British bases in this country. Those strict criteria were in the statement that I made, and added to those strict criteria was the duty to minimise civilian casualties. Therefore, it is clear that we were considering only conventional weapons. Nuclear weapons would require totally different procedures. It is absurd to say that they were ever asked for. Within the strict criteria that we laid down, the precise choice of weapons in the conventional sphere was for the United States.

Since both the Italian and French Governments are liberalising their exchange controls, and since all the criticisms made by Professor Alan Walters in The Times have either been met or are unfounded, is it not time that we joined the European monetary system?

I did not read Professor Alan Walters' book in quite that way. As my hon. Friend knows, it is our policy that we shall one day join the European monetary exchange mechanism, but we do not believe that the time is yet right.

President Reagan made two speeches yesterday in which he emphasised that he is prepared, as he put it, to act again against Libya. Will the Prime Minister tell us frankly whether she would be prepared to endorse or assist in a further similar raid?

I have already answered that question several times. Should there be a further request, it would have to be considered. We would reach our conclusions in the light of circumstances and matters which would have to be considered at that time.

Has the Prime Minister read the interview given by the Secretary of State for Defence to Mr. Terry Coleman, which appeared in The Guardian this morning, in which the Secretary of State said:

"It wasn't our decision to do it, …If that question had been put to us, I don't know quite what response we'd have given."

I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman's question, if only he would listen.

The Prime Minister has not answered that question. She is trying to claim that she has somehow mitigated the nature and effects of the American raid. Is it not the case that she has now moved into the worst of all worlds, demonstrating both complicity and impotence?

What the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to do is to help the terrorists by letting them know exactly what answer we shall give to a request. I have already told him that if a request were received we would have to consider it in the light of the circumstances at the time.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the statements by the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice in the case of invalid care allowances? Will she accept that married women who care voluntarily for disabled relatives at home have much sympathy on both sides of the House? Could not the Government, who do care for the carers, consider making this payment available?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the judgment in that case will not be given until about June. When it arrives we shall, of course, consider it carefully and the reasons for it.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 April.

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

Further to the answer that the Prime Minister gave to her hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), does she agree that the exchange rate is now within the central band and that the European monetary system can be adjusted to include us without a major realignment? In view of the strong arguments advanced by Sir James Cleminson, the president of the CBI, concerning the advantage to British industry of entering the mechanism now, should she not listen to the senior members of her Cabinet, who favour entry now; and stop playing this one-man band record on the subject?

No. I outlined the general policy to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). The time is not ripe to join the EMS. Just because the exchange rate is in a certain band now does not mean that it will stay there. If it did not, one would either have to use scarce reserves artificially to keep it within that limit, or one might be driven to put up the interest rate. We would be much more circumscribed within the EMS mechanism than we wish to be at the moment.

While we are on the EMS issue, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of us would prefer to have our affairs managed by the Bank of England rather than by the Bundesbank?

I note what my hon. Friend says. I have already said that to join it at the moment would limit our freedom of action, and that is not desirable at present.

Has the Prime Minister noticed the statements that President Reagan has made about Iran and Syria—almost threatening them with the same thing that was done to Libya? Has she also noticed how few Americans are coming over here and that people are deeply worried by the fact that the President of the United States seems to have lost his mind about this business and is literally threatening all mankind with what he will do next if terrorism breaks out anywhere?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the objective is to fight terrorism. If one always rejects the use of force to fight terrorism, the terrorist wins and the consequences for more victims are horrific.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 April.

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

While the whole House goes along with the "Viva el Rey" speech by Mr. Speaker yesterday in another place, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no change in the sovereignty of Gibraltar, and certainly no change without the consent of the people in that colony?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The whole House and, I think, the whole country welcomes the state visit of Their Majesties the King and Queen of Spain. It is a great success. We know full well Their Majesties' views on Gibraltar. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government have given assurances to the people of Gibraltar that Gibraltar will remain part of Her Majesty's dominions unless and until an Act of Parliament otherwise provides, and furthermore that Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the 30 or more Labour councillors were disqualified at Lambeth they left a rump of three councillors to run Lambeth council? Is she aware that a meeting tomorrow night—[Interruption.]

Order. The question must involve the Prime Minister's responsibility.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is to be a meeting tomorrow night to reverse the position? Will she condemn the use of force, which I understand will be employed to break up that meeting, and, indeed, any use of force in public life?

I think that we would all unhesitatingly condemn any use of force to break up that council meeting. I hope that it takes place tomorrow night and that the Conservatives take over the authority of the council.

In the discussions between representatives of the American Government and Her Majesty's Government about bombing targets in Libya, did the Americans at any time say that one of the objectives was the killing of Colonel Gaddafi?

No, of course not.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 April.

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

Will the Prime Minister comment on a report that the Tory candidate in the by-election at Ryedale made a statement at a press conference this morning to the effect that we are at war with Libya? Does the Prime Minister approve of that, and does it reflect the attitude of the Government?

No, that is not correct. Of course, terrorism itself—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If hon. Gentlemen had had the courtesy to listen, they would have heard what I said. They do not have the courtesy to listen, or courtesy of any other sort. Terrorism is a form of warfare against all other citizens in democratic societies.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 April.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the voluntary licensing authority should be congratulated on its first year's work in monitoring IVF clinics and research laboratories, work in which this country leads the world in setting the very highest ethical standards?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's great interest in this matter. I noted that the first report had been published, and I hope that it will be widely studied, because the organisation's work is excellent.

Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the Government are taking every step possible to co-ordinate other countries' actions in refusing Libyan aircraft facilities to land at our airports, and that we are now prepared to adopt sanctions against Libyan air flights both in and out of this country?

I think the right hon. Gentleman is aware that if some of the deportees about whom my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke to the House are to go, they will probably have to do so on Libyan aircraft. He is also aware that there are a number of our citizens in Libya, some of whom may want to get out on other aircraft.

In view of the act of terrorism today and the others that we have experienced in Europe so recently, will my right hon. Friend encourage as many Americans as possible to follow their colleagues last year and come to this country to see that it is the safest in the EEC? Will she also give support to the British Tourist Authority in promoting Britain overseas?

Yes, I gladly support my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who is also responsible for tourism. He is doing everything that he can to promote in the United States our tourist industry. My hon. Friend may have heard what someone from the American embassy said this morning—that he hoped that more American tourists would come to this country, which is a safe and good country.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 April.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree with her Secretary of State for Defence, who is reported in the papers this morning as saying that the precise position and the precise targets were not agreed, and he was not informed about them? Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether she did have precise detailed information of the targets that were to be bombed, or is the special relationship that she has with President Reagan more one of master and servant?

I have answered that question in previous statements and speeches. I made it perfectly clear that the Government agreed to the use of United States aircraft based in the United Kingdom if that was necessary in the action of self-defence against specific targets, demonstrably involved in the conduct and support of terrorist activities. We laid down strict criteria. I notice that the hon. Member, like so many of his colleagues, does everything to try to undermine the fundamental relationship between Europe and the United States.

On a point of order arising directly from questions, and because it is a complete calumny, I want to ask through you, Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister will unreservedly withdraw her statement, made in the heat of Question Time, that I am seeking to help terrorists? That is utterly unjustified, and a vile insult, that is not even acceptable in the bitterest of exchanges in this place.

Order. If the Prime Minister did say that, and I must confess that from where I was sitting I did not hear it, I am sure that she would wish to correct it.

May I make it perfectly clear what precisely, I believe, I did say. I said that if one tells the terrorists precisely what one is, or is not going to do, that is the way to help him. I did not seek to impute anything personal to the right hon. Gentleman, and if that was the effect of what I said, I gladly withdraw it.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are rights in this House that belong to hon. Members other than the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, and we are entitled to look to you, to safeguard the rights of all Members of this House. It is within the knowledge of all Members that recently statements have been made in the course of questions and answers, and hon. Members have risen to object. It has been the convention, in my experience in this House, that Mr. Speaker will not allow time to be used for hon. Members to object to comments. I ask a simple question—why have you allowed, on a point of order, a statement from the Leader of the Opposition that you would not have allowed from any other hon. Member?

Order. If the Prime Minister or any other hon. Member, casts an aspersion on the honour of any other hon. Member, I will always apply the rules. I am the guardian of Back Benchers as much as of Front Benchers, and the same rules apply to everyone.