asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Diplock courts operate in a different way from courts in Scotland and England, he will take steps to grant political status to some of those convicted by them, as he considers appropriate.

No, Sir.

May I thank the Minister, parliamentary colleagues, Northern Ireland Office civil servants and political parties in Northern Ireland for their courtesy and the time that they gave to our recent Labour Party delegation to Northern Ireland? May I quietly ask whether there is a case for different treatment, given that there is no Diplock-type court this side of the water? Does not the present situation simply feed resentment?

The different treatment to which the hon. Gentleman refers arises from the impact of terrorism on jury members. There is no good cause, therefore, for the individual terrorist to be treated in a specially favourable way by the court that he has sought to terrorise.

When taking any decisions, will the Government bear in mind the impact on prison discipline generally of any concessions and special treatment for prisoners who defy that discipline?

We are aware of that, and my right hon. Friend has underlined the extent to which we believe that terrorist acts should be treated as criminal acts, by the recent decision that he has announced in regard to special category prisoners.

Will the Minister take it from me that what is needed in Northern Ireland is a greater deterrent than prison sentencing, rather than a lesser one? In that regard, will he consider looking into the prospect of having mandatory sentences for various terrorist offences?

The Court has great flexibility in the matter of sentences, and I have no reason to believe that it does not have enough scope to deal with terrorists acts as the merits and nature of the acts deserve.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has long been regarded as a most persistent questioner in Parliament, and this morning he has the distinction of being the earliest questioner in parliamentary history?

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that because there are no juries in Diplock courts, that does not mean that people are denied a fair trial? I reiterate my tribute to the impartiality which the Northern Ireland judiciary show to those accused in their courts. Will the Minister accept that some crimes are too horrible to be excused by any attribution of political motive? Will he therefore concentrate on other areas of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act which are now ripe for amendment?

On the last point, we shall certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman said. As he knows, the renewal of the Act is a regular cyclical process. We shall consider all representations that are made.

I fully endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the integrity and fairness of the judicial processes. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who raised the question, will know that the Diplock courts, without a jury, afford the defendant a special access to the Court of Appeal which is not normal in other respects.

rose—

Order. I shall call one more hon. Member from each side.

Does the Minister of State agree that Diplock-type courts are not unique? For example, in London the stipendiary magistrates sit without juries, even on the most serious cases. Does the Minister recognise that the Official Unionist Members support the present Government, as we supported their predecessors, in their resolve to end political status for prisoners in any shape or form?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing our attention again to the variations of the normal jury process. There are stipendiary courts, to which he referred, and the Appeal Court to which I referred. I underline and accept the view that he expressed about the necessity to treat crimes and bloody murder as exactly that, and not as some idealised political acts.

Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that there will be no going back on the decision not to give political status to these terrorists—criminals who have been found guilty in a court of law? Does he appreciate that many prison officers have suffered as a result? Many have been killed because they have carried out the Government's will in this matter. They will view any going back on the decision as a betrayal of their stand.

I willingly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There can be nothing further from the mind of the Government, the Opposition, hon. Members or the people of this country than that there can be some sort of excuse, based upon motive, to mitigate the appalling crimes of murder, brutality, terrorism, and so on. We propose to treat those as criminal acts, and not as political acts requiring some sort of special indulgence.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the outcome of his constitutional discussions with political leaders in the Province.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the constitutional conference on his White Paper has finished its work.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he now intends to make for the constitutional future of Northern Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the progress of the constitutional talks.

The conference adjourned on 24 March after considering each of the 14 items on the agenda. All the participants agreed that it would be an appropriate time for me to take stock of all that had been said and to report to the Cabinet. As was made clear in the working paper published last November, the aim of the conference from the outset has been to identify the highest level of agreement on how powers of government might be transferred to elected representatives in Northern Ireland. The conference is part of a continuing process to find new arrangements acceptable to both parts of the Community in Northern Ireland.

The conference has led to a valuable dialogue between the Government and the Northern Ireland political parties attending. It has clarified the parties' views, and it has increased my understanding, and theirs, of what our aims must be and the problems that must be solved. Perhaps even more significant, it revealed an acceptance by all concerned of the seven principles laid down in paragraph 5 of the working paper (Cmnd. 7763) which provided the basis for these meetings.

The Government are now considering the progress of the conference so far. In the light of what we have learnt the Government will be putting forward proposals for the fullest discussion and consultation.

rose—

Order. I propose to call first the four hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Following the conference, will he consider whether it would be valuable to widen the basis of the discussions to enable other people in the community—for example, Church leaders or leaders of industry, commerce or the trade unions—to participate, to see whether as broad a base of support as possible could emerge?

That is an important part of what the Government should do, because when we are seeking some arrangements, and support for those arrangements, it is hoped that support will come from the political parties. However, everyone who will be affected by the proposals which the Government put forward will also have their views. I want to obtain views from as wide an area of opinion in Northern Ireland as I can.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Was I correct in hearing him say that he was thinking in terms of putting forward another consultative document after taking stock of the results of the conference? Can he give some indication of when he hopes to be in a position to take practical steps towards improving the quality of government in the Province, as outlined in our manifesto?

I said that the Government would put forward proposals for the fullest discussion and consultation. That is what we shall do. I am not yet able to tell the House about the precise manner in which we shall do that. However, I assure hon. Members that we shall keep the House closely in touch with everything that we are doing, although I cannot give a final date at the present time.

Is not it time, after nearly 10 years, for the Government to make up their own mind?

So far as I am concerned, it should be 10 months.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether, as a result of the conference, he has detected a sense of urgency to end direct rule? When he considers the question of the transfer of certain powers to a local government, does he see the need as being to create an administration to make good the obvious inadequacies of the present local government structure in the Province?

All the political parties in Northern Ireland fought the general election on manifestos which included a desire to move away from the present system of direct rule to more locally based arrangements. Therefore, in my consultation with the political parties it has been no surprise to find that they are keen to move forward. As I hope is well known, the Government are anxious to end direct rule as it now is and to replace it with some acceptable and workable arrangement in the Province.

Is the Secretary of State aware that throughout the course of the conference there was intense speculation by political journalists and correspondents in Northern Ireland that the Government had a pigeon-holed plan, which had been conceived in advance of the conference? That was even stated by some of the participants to the conference. It was alleged that the Government were going through the motions of holding a conference but that they had preconceived ideas of what the solution might be. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned proposals. Are the Government now formulating those proposals? Were they formulated before the conference took place? Will those proposals be for discussion, or will they be for acceptance or rejection by the politicians in Northern Ireland?

We are formulating proposals. They will certainly be for consultation and discussion—widely in the Province, in this House and so on. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was speculation, particularly among the press, that the Government had their own ideas, which they would put forward whatever the outcome of the conference. I hope and believe that the press and everyone else now recognise that that was not the case. This was a genuine attempt to find what level of agreement we could in order to formulate proposals which we could have reason to believe would command acceptability.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems over the conference was that the circle of those originally consulted on the document was small? If he now thinks that that circle ought to be widened, will he take steps to ensure that the Government's proposals are circulated to them? He should take the initiative in calling talks.

Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a paramount need for a parliamentay debate on these proposals, and not merely that information should be supplied to Parliament? We shall need information not only about the Government's latest thinking but about the thinking of the participants to the conference, so that we may inform ourselves fully. Will the right hon. Gentleman resist the blandishments of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook)? There is nothing that some people in Northern Ireland, and some hon. Members, would like better than the imposition of a settlement from outside, but only a settlement that is arrived at by consensus is likely to be of lasting value.

I entirely agree with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I note that he believes that a debate in Parliament, after the proposals have been published, would be advantageous. I agree with him, and I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to what he has said.

I totally agree about the widest possible level of consultation. We cannot possibly impose a solution upon the people of Northern Ireland against their will—at least, if we tried to, it would fail. Therefore, we all want to obtain the views of as many people as possible, be they the views of the political parties or of people who are not politicians but who nevertheless will be closely affected by anything that we do.

Does the Secretary of State recall the warning given by myself and other hon. Members in November and December of last year that the conference would fail because he deliberately excluded all Ulster Members from the constitutional talks? Will he now consider the proposition that I made then, that all Ulster Members should debate the constitutional issue publicly in Stormont? We could then have a referendum in Northern Ireland, which would give the people the option of total integration, which I reject, or a devolved Parliament at Stormont, which I am certain they would wish.

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in saying that the conference failed. It did no such thing. It was extremely valuable to the Government and, I believe, to those parties which attended. As to the future, I note that he wants the matter discussed with Northern Ireland Members. I suggest that it should be discussed here, because we can then obtain the views of all the Northern Ireland representatives as well as other hon. Members. After all, in the end, this House and the other place will have the final say about what is done.

Has the Secretary of State yet discovered that the biggest stumbling block to any permanent solution in Northern Ireland is the existence of the unconditional underwriting of the Unionist veto in Northern Ireland politics? In the run-up to the proposals that he intends to put to the House, will he consider ways and means of bringing that unconditional underwriting to an end and thereby allow ordinary political development to take place in Northern Ireland?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The guarantee is not unconditional. It is highly conditional for as long as the people of Northern Ireland wish that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom. That is a very severe condition, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied with frontier security arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about security, with particular reference to the border counties.

Since I last addressed the House on 6 March, three people, including two members of the King's Own Border Regiment, have died as a result of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland. There have been a number of other attacks on members of the security forces, one of which resulted in serious injuries to a part-time member of the UDR and another yesterday in Crossmaglen to a soldier. But on two other occasions members of the RUC, having come under armed attack, warded it off and made red-handed arrests.

During the period in question the security forces have maintained their pressure on the terrorists. Forty-eight people have been charged with terrorist-type offences, including five with murder and 10 with attempted murder. Sixteen weapons and 891 rounds of ammunition have been seized as well as a substantial collection of bomb-making equipment, which has enabled the RUC to bring a number of criminal charges.

No one holding my office could be satisfied about security in the border areas as long as terrorists are active there; but I can assure the House that, although it would not be in the public interest to give details, the security forces use all possible means to counter the terrorists. What I can say is that we attach great importance to co-operation with the Republic of Ireland in efforts to neutralise the terrorists' use of the border. I am equally clear that the authorities in the Republic recognise this need, and I am glad to say that there has been considerable progress on this front. I am confident that this will continue to improve and that it will play no small part in the eventual suppression of crime in Northern Ireland.

On the question of frontier crossings by vehicles, can the Secretary of State explain why the existing control legislation appears to have fallen into disuse? How many Customs stations have been moved back more than three miles from the frontier?

The old system of checking vehicles crossing the border was gradually relaxed over a period of years because it became unwieldy, with the growth of legitimate border traffic. However, Customs and Excise, together with its counterpart in the Republic, has agreed to, and is now introducing, a new system of joint documentation that will monitor the cross-border traffic of vehicles. This is expected to come into operation very soon. I cannot, without notice, tell the hon. Member how many Customs posts have been moved back from the border, but a number of them were, chiefly in the interests of the safety of the staff.

Will my right hon. Friend tender to the Ulster Defence Regiment our thanks and admiration now that it is 10 years old? On the border where the UDR has suffered many cruel casualties, are there enough troops to maintain public morale and also to prevent arms and land from falling into the hands of the IRA mafia?

I know that the whole House will be grateful for what my hon. Friend has said and, indeed, will wish to support the early-day motion which he and his hon. Friends have put on the Order Paper in those terms. I know also that the Regiment itself will be very pleased at his expression of support, which I wholly endorse.

The second matter that my hon. Friend raised, about land falling into the hands of undesirable people, is a difficult one. I do not believe that this is happening in the way that some fear, but a question of morale is involved, especially in remote country districts. However, from every contact that I have with the UDR, I can see that morale is extremely high.

Is the Secretary aware that this year four people have been killed within hundreds of yards of the border in my constituency? How good is co-operation with the security forces in the Republic, if such killings can occur with that regularity?

I said in my original answer that I can never be satisfied as long as terrorists remain active in the area, and I am not. But co-operation is better than it was, and is still improving.

As many police have recently been moved to the border, do they have adequate weaponry to deal with terrorists, and have they had adequate training in the use of that weaponry? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the arms that were ordered from the United States are now available to the RUC?

The arms that were ordered from the United States have been delivered. There is a requirement for a further supply of arms, though not immediately. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the RUC has all the weapons that it needs and, judging by the events of the past few months, it is clear that they are becoming increasingly skilled in the use of those weapons.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that though we all agree with the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) in grieving over the frequency of killings, nevertheless one of the values of border operations that cannot be discussed is the deterrent effect of these operations? Secondly, does he agree that the arms find yesterday is a symbol that, although not perfect, the link and agreement with the Republic are working?

Yes, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is right on both counts. The purpose of security forces is primarily to deter and to prevent crime, and I believe that they are succeeding slowly in this objective. Like the hon. Gentleman, I congratulate the Garda on its arms find yesterday. It will be another severe deterrent to terrorism.

Is it not a fact that known terrorists are moving about the Province with impunity because there is unsufficient evidence to take proceedings against them? Has my right hon. Friend had discussions recently with the Law Officers to see whether any special legal procedures can be devised to take account of these special and exceptional circumstances?

Yes, I have, and these discussions are continuing, but we have to move with great caution so long as the Government's policy is to operate within the rule of law. We are all determined that we should continue to do this, but if there are ways in which the law can be improved and yet not be regarded as unfair, we shall follow them.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to meet the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Northern Ireland committee.

I met representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Northern Ireland committee on 11 March 1980, and have no immediate plans for another meeting.

When the Secretary of State next meets the Northern Ireland committee of the ICTU, will he tell it what plans he has to reduce the high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland, and discuss with it the serious effects of public spending cuts on the poorer sections of the community, especially in urban areas?

We discussed both those matters at my meeting on 11 March, and I look forward to further meetings with the Northern Ireland committee, at which I shall continue to explain Government policies and seek to get the committee's support for them.

Will the Secretary of State accept that the demonstrations that took place throughout Northern Ireland yesterday, under the auspices of the trade union movement, were almost an expression of concern over the fears now being expressed throughout Northern Ireland about the Government's doctrinaire Tory policies? Does he accept that the ICTU has predicted that within the next year the number of unemployed in Northern Ireland will increase by a further 8,000? Will he confirm or deny those suspicions?

No, Sir. The ICTU is entitled to make any predictions that it likes. I was aware of the reasons for the demonstrations yesterday. I regret those demonstrations, because I do not believe that they serve a useful purpose in seeking to reduce unemployment. I have explained to the ICTU, and shall continue to explain, Government policies, some of which it does not suport. I am glad to say that people in the country generally support Government policies.

Does the Secretary of State realise that it is not simply a question of reducing the already high level of unemployment of 65,000? It is a question of facing the bleak prospect of having about 115,000 unemployed in Northern Ireland as a result of Government cuts—and that in a Province where the cost of living is already high, and where gas, electricity and coal are far dearer than in Great Britain.

Not for the first time, I find myself unable to accept the hon. Gentleman's predictions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the public expenditure figures published last week show that public expenditure in 1983–84 will be £130 million less than it is now, £62 million of that being accounted for by less aid to industry? How does he expect that to do other than increase unemployment, lower the standards of public provision and cause a great deal of further job loss in both the private and the public sectors?

The hon Gentleman will have seen from the White Paper that public expenditure forecasts for Northern Ireland give a higher level than in any year before the one in which his Government thought that an election was just coming. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point is that the reduced figure that he mentions takes account of the reduction in the electricity subsidy.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress towards giving effect to the Government's policy to set up one or more elected local authorities similar to county councils.

It is important to recognise that the Government's policy is to seek an acceptable way of transferring powers to elected representatives in Northern Ireland. The conference working paper contained six illustrative models of government, one of which described how executive powers might be exercised by one or more local authorities. Having heard the views of the parties represented at the conference and of others, I am clear that such a solution would fall short of commanding wide acceptance.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the discussions and proposals at the constitutional conference, it is the responsibility of this House, and this House alone, to introduce whatever measures are right and proper, and that the main concern of the House will be that there should on no account be introduced measures that would in any way damage the present or future integrity of the United Kingdom?

I agree, and I would add that the measures that the House introduces must command acceptance among the people to whom they will apply.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, whatever may be the future internal government arrangements on an elective basis, and whatever may be the links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom constitutionally, it will be fundamentally wrong and will result in continued troubles throughout the genera- tions if we do not introduce an all-Ireland dimension into the future political development of the Province?

What the Government wish to do is to return to people elected in the Province powers over their own affairs. It will be for that body to decide what relations it wishes to have with authorities in the South.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that all the official submissions received by the conference were in favour of a devolved Government rather than a local council set-up, and that the question, which says that it is present. Government policy to set up quasi local councils, is incorrect?

Yes, Sir. I can give the same answer to both parts of my hon. Friend's question.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement about the De Lorean motor car project.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has yet reached a decision on the latest application for financial assistance by the De Lorean company.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the De Lorean car company.

I understand that satisfactory progress is being maintained and that pilot production will start before the end of the second quarter of this year. I have not yet reached a decision on the company's application for additional assistance.

In the hope that my hon. Friend's mind is still open on the matter, and bearing in mind that many other public corporations are having to observe strict economies, may I ask my hon. Friend whether the whole incident concerning the De Lorean motor car project does not verge on the scandalous? He surely has a clear duty to treat with contempt the application for additional funds.

The project was entered into by the previous Government under binding arrangements, and the present Government have every intention of carrying them out. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that the position is scandalous. I view the potential creation of 2,000 jobs in the area as a matter of considerable importance to the Province. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that, in terms of additional expenditure, the Government will look most closely at the application that has been made.

How can my hon. Friend look most closely at the application if the obligations are binding? Is he aware that Mr. De Lorean has now revealed that what he is after is not £5 million of extra Government money but £8 million?

Entrepreneur.

Is there any precedent anywhere else in the United Kingdom, or for that matter in the world, for such a deal, by which that gentleman got all the equity for none of the cash, and on top of that apparently received a guarantee against exchange rate movements and increases in inflation?

The arrangements to which my hon. Friend refers allowed the company to make application. What it did not suggest was a commitment that that application would be met in full. The Government are considering the application, the sums involved and the methods of funding, if any.

Does the Minister accept that it is important to provide jobs in West Belfast, but also that the cost appears to be on the high side in this venture? Will he confirm that the electric reservoir moulding wonder process does not work, that the original wonder car was productionised by Lotus Cars, and that the total rights of the design and development, which had been paid for by the taxpayer, are retained by the De Lorean research partnership? Does not that seem to be a fairly bad bargain for the taxpayer?

It is not true that the ERM process has failed. It will not be used for this project, but development work is proceeding on it satisfactorily. As regards development of the car, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would accept that development carried out by Lotus Cars, and engineering carried out by Renault, currently leading the world championship, indicate that the car will have a pedigree second to none in the market in which it is designed to compete. As regards the taxpayer, we have every intention of seeing that the vehicle sells, and sells well.

When considering a request for assistance, will my hon. Friend look closely at the conditions in the motor industry in the United States, and not be led away by the forecasts of Mr. De Lorean? Will he take account of the forecasts of other car makers in this country who are attempting to sell sports cars in the United States?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern and his knowledge of motor industry affairs. What is under discussion is a matter of forecasting not the sales or marketing but the additonal costs incurred on the present project. However, I confirm that we are taking the widest possible sounding on the projections so that we can reach the best possible decision.

Whilst I accept that the jobs in question may be unacceptably expensive, does the Minister agree that the latest figures show that Northern Ireland has the highest unemployment in Western Europe and the lowest wages, and that essential goods there are the most expensive? In view of that, should not the Government exclude Northern Ireland from their latest public expenditure cuts, which will only make more people unemployed?

The matter has already been dealt with in general in the House, but in relation to the De Lorean project I trust that the hon. Lady will understand that with the 2,000 jobs in the plant comes a spin-off in terms of community expenditure that is significantly greater.

Will the Minister accept once more from these Benches our general support for his approach to the De Lorean project? Will he inform his hon. Friends, in particular the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), that the steel used at De Lorean is almost certainly from areas such as Scunthorpe, and that if his hon. Friend had his constituents' best interests at heart he would encourage the development of that project and not knock it? Further, will he tell the House the results of his talks, promised during the recent Appropriations debate, with the management of De Lorean on the question of absorbing more of the unemployed of West Belfast?

In relation to both those points, I assure the hon. Gentleman that many British components, including steel, are currently being used. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) will help us to reduce the price currently being offered by the British Steel Corporation. On the second point, I confirm that discussions will take place with the company to see whether we can obtain a weighting in favour of the long-term unemployed.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans for speeding up the sale of publicly owned dwellings in Northern Ireland.

I have asked the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to give urgent consideration to ways and means of speeding up the sale of dwellings to sitting tenants who wish to purchase their homes. I understand that the chairman of the executive will be leading a small working group to consider this matter.

At 21 March, under our new house sales policy, 20,659 applications had been received by the executive and 17,476 valuations had been requested from the valuation office, of which 4,867 valuations had been made.

I thank the Minister for his reply, but is it not clear from the record that last year the Housing Executive was able to process about 2,000 sales? What guarantee can he give to those who have applied to buy a house that he can multiply that figure by 10 this year? Is he aware that while the price of a house may be tied to the date of application, a long delay means that improvements that need to be carried out will cost a great deal more? Can anything be done to alleviate that problem? Finally, has the Housing Executive any plans to carry out a survey of the ownership of the land on which many rural cottages now stand?

We are looking at the whole problem of title indemnification, which is integral to the hon. Gentleman's last question. I have every reason to think that there will be no hold-up in the continuing flow of offers being made to tenants. We should significantly exceed the number of offers that were made last year under the old sales policy.

Will the Minister take it from me that, in my constituency at least, it is not the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that is causing delay, but the valuation office? Will he take steps to expedite the process?

We had expected problems on valuation, but the figures that I have given show that nearly 5,000 valuations have been made in recent weeks. I suggest that the problem will be less serious than we had anticipated.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that before the Government came into office the Housing Executive already had a substantial programme for the sale of houses? Is he further aware that the actual speed of sale has not been increased by piling the plans of the new Government on top of that?

I am satisfied that there will be a significant improvement in the coming months.

As a Tory Minister with some experience of finance, can the hon. Gentleman give any indication of what he would regard as the true going-rate for a flat in Divis Towers, Ballymurphy, Turf Lodge, or some of the more affluent areas of Belfast?

I do not expect many applications from people in flats in Divis Towers. However, we have a programme, costing £7 million, which should lead to a massive improvement in the conditions of those tenants, provided that we are allowed to go ahead, and that those who are trying to sabotage the programme do not succeed.

In view of the plight of many young couples who cannot possibly afford the high mortgage rates, which have rocketed as a result of the Government's policies, surely rather than speed up the process the Minister should reconsider the policy not to sell off these valuable assets, especially in areas of high demand for rented accommodation?

We have taken the lead in Northern Ireland in developing co-ownership schemes, particularly the co-ownership housing associations. They offer particular opportunities to young married couples. I am glad that Northern Ireland is doing better in this respect than other parts of the United Kingdom.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 April.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to consider a report in today's press to the effect that manufacturing output will fall by 4½ per cent. and that unemployment is likely to rise to 2½ million? Is it not disgraceful that that announcement was not made last week, at the time of the Budget Statement? Could it be that the right hon. Lady and her colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not have that information? If they did not know about it, will they find time during the recess to produce another Budget that will take that information into consideration?

If the hon. Member reads the Red Book, he will find the official Government forecast. I know of many forecasts, and some of them are very gloomy. We had some extremely gloomy forecasts for the end of last year, but, in the outturn, the standard of living rose by about 6 per cent.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to refute reports in the press this morning to the effect that the consequence of the tax agreed in Brussels on food imports into Britain will be to increase the cost of our contribution to the Community budget? If that were the case, would it not undermine our position when negotiating with the Community?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are trying to secure substantial reductions in our contribution to the Community. I am aware of some of the complicated factors about MCAs. They are designed to see that our producers get a fair deal in competition with others. I have a brief on this subject that consists of two whole pages of foolscap. I assure my hon. Friend that it is highly complicated and that he would prefer me not to read it out.

Although it is highly complicated, does not the right hon. Lady think that it is highly important as well, since the report states that under these arrangements we are to have a tax on food coming into this country? When will she report to the House? Does she regard this as a further example of her success in EEC diplomacy?

I do not think that the report is quite right. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wants the system to apply in such a way that it will not subject British producers to unfair competition. We are both very concerned about prices to the housewife. However, it would be far better if the right hon. Gentleman were to ask for the full details from my right hon. Friend. I can spend the whole of Question Time on this subject, but I am not sure that it would be illuminating either to the right hon. Gentleman or to me.

Will the right hon. Lady confirm, as her right hon. Friend and the report have indicated, that it is not only a question of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but that it concerns the consequences for Britain's contribution to the budget as a whole? Is it not she who is answerable to the House on all those issues?

Of course I am concerned about the consequences for the British contribution to the Community as a whole. With that in mind, we look at every change proposed in the CAP, in order to ensure that it is not adverse to Britain's interests. Some of the proposed changes are adverse to our interests. That is why we could not possibly agree to them. There is no doubt about that.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the style and content of the Government's White Paper on defence were greatly appreciated by all Conservative Members, and no doubt by those in the Armed Forces? Does she agree that the Government still need to make a massive effort to put over to the people of Britain, particularly the young, the need for NATO to update its nuclear weapons and to maintain defence expenditure at that level?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, I agree that the level of defence expenditure must be related to the level of the force that we have to deter. That must happen at all levels, whether nuclear, theatre nuclear or conventional. A decision has not yet been made about the updating of nuclear weapons. My right hon. Friend will report to the House when it has.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to consider arranging meetings between herself and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic on a regular basis, so that matters of concern to both countries can be discussed in a systematic way?

We meet at the European summits, and I shall be meeting the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic at the next European summit towards the end of April. I believe that it is preferable for more regular meetings to be held on security matters between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his opposite number in the Irish Republic.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Militant Tendency movement has completely taken over the Southampton Labour Party, and that the citizens of Southampton are alarmed that after the next local election there may be for the first time in living memory a Communist-controlled local authority?

I trust that my hon. Friend will be sufficiently active in Southampton in our cause to see that that does not happen.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in framing policy in relation to Afghanistan, Her Majesty's Government took into account the torture and massacre of a significant number of Russian technical advisers in Herat on and about 5 April 1979.

I can neither confirm nor deny the report about the treatment of Russian technical advisers in Herat last year. Even if the report is true, it would not have justified the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan eight months later and the subsequent killing of large numbers of Afghan men, women and children.

Will the Prime Minister accept the ghoulish truth, of which I gave her office details 11 days ago, that about a year ago to the day 30 Russian technical advisers were forced to eat their own testicles, they were then skinned alive and their heads were paraded through Herat by Afghan factions? Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is not surprising that Mother Russia will not sit by and see factional crises of militant irredentist Islam on her Central Asian borders—[Hon. Members: "Reading."]

Yes, I am reading, because I am asking a careful and precise question.

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is out of order to read questions. As he has confessed before the House to reading, I have no alternative but to ask him to try to remember that.

Do not the British know better than most that once an army is sucked into factional tribal strife it is much more difficult to get that army out?

The hon. Gentleman asked me if I could confirm those reports. I can only tell him that I can neither confirm nor deny them.

The hon Gentleman knows that I am the first to condemn all violence, by whomsoever it is perpetrated. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that the answer to violence is not for one nation to march into another's territory and perpetrate further acts of violence. I hope that he will agree that that can never be justified and will join almost all hon. Members in asking the Russians to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports that many hundreds of thousands of Afghans have been murdered by the forces of the Soviet Union since Afghanistan was invaded? Will she accept that my information is that every Afghan to whom I talked during my last visit to Kabul 18 months ago, from Nur Mohammed Tarakki downwards, has been killed? As these massacres are continuing, could a new international initiative be taken to persuade the United Nations to impose universal economic sanctions against the USSR?

I believe that a large number of atrocities are being and have been committed. My hon. Friend and I will condemn them with all the force and power at our command, and also condemn the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

As my hon. Friend knows, the President of the United States suggested that certain measures should be taken against Russia, including sanctions on technological exports and the export of wheat. We do not yet have universal acceptance of those sanctions. We are therefore trying to co-operate with our European partners and our American friends. My right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary made a most constructive suggestion to help to get troops out of Afghanistan. He suggested that Afghanistan could be a neutral country, and therefore its security would be guaranteed. That should enable the Russians to take their troops out of Afghanistan if they wished to.

With regard to that proposal by the Foreign Secretary, who does the right hon. Lady believe would guarantee the neutrality of Afghanistan? Have the Government had the courtesy to approach the Government of Afghanistan on the matter?

There have been talks between Powers, but not specifically between ourselves and the Government of Afghanistan. The hon. Gentleman is less than welcoming to an initiative that was genuinely meant to try to defuse the situation, to the great advantage of the people of Afghanistan and many of the surrounding countries.

Is not the way to end all atrocities in Afghanistan for the Soviet Union to end its occupation?

Like Northern Ireland.

In view of the ominous statements from Kabul about the validity of the Durand line, will Her Majesty's Government use their influence, which they still have on the Subcontinent, to try to improve Judo-Pakistan co-operation for the safety of the Sub-continent?

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was the invasion by a foreign Power of an independent country, which bears no relation whatever to our troops being in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.

We shall do all that we can to secure the improvement of relations between India and Pakistan. I agree with my hon. Friend that they are vital to future peace in that area.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 April.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to consider the plight of our carpet industry? Is there any possibility of an early settlement with the EEC regarding import quotas for tufted carpets? Will the right hon. Lady confer with the Secretary of State for Industry with a view to extending the reimbursement period for those on the temporary short-term compensation scheme within the carpet industry in particular, and in industry generally?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade applied for quotas on the tufted carpet industry because of the level of imports. The Community felt that the level of imports was not sufficiently high to warrant a quota. My right hon. Friend and the Community are monitoring the quantity of imports that come in and will not hesitate to take action should it become too high.

In view of the news of yet another factory closure in Liverpool which has nothing to do with the normal reasons for such closures, will my right hon. Friend press the Ministers concerned to make as much speed as possible with the enterprise zone, which will give the people in the area a much-needed shot in the arm?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The enterprise zone scheme is extremely interesting, and will bring a lot of hope to people in areas where there has been precious little. The problem will be to limit enterprise zones, because I believe that we shall have a flood of applications. We shall press ahead as fast as we can, and I hope that the experiment will be thoroughly successful.

Will the Prime Minister indicate to the House the consequences of the proposed or possible cancellation of the two AGRs at Heysham and Torness for the power generating industry? Will she give a further assurance that no decision will be taken and announced during the recess?

We have not yet decided. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking once again at the nuclear programme in view of the fact that the consumption of electricity is very much less than had been anticipated. The particular factor to which he refers namely, the effect upon the nuclear power industry, is one that will be taken into account when deciding. I assure him that at the moment no decision has been taken.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that in the event of a national railway strike the attitude of the Government will be as non-interventionist as it was during the 13 weeks of the steel strike? Will she further confirm that any settlement of the railway dispute should include a high level of productivity, which many of us who use the services of British Rail feel there is ample opportunity to achieve?

I am glad to respond to my hon. Friend. The cash limit for British Rail is very high. It is over £700 million this year. It will be something like £730 million to £740 million next year. British Rail must live within that cash limit and accordingly make a settlement in its own way through its own negotiations. May I express one thought? I hope that British Rail will not automatically assume that the railway travelling public will go on paying ever higher fares, because they cannot do that.