asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total of public expenditure on airports in Northern Ireland since 1980.

In the past three years almost £10·8 million of public money has been spent on the development of Belfast Aldergrove airport to provide better technical facilities and to give greater comfort to passengers, 1·4 million of whom used the airport last year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Within that expenditure, are any moneys set aside for the return each night of British Airways' crews to Glasgow in an empty aeroplane because they are not prepared to stay the night in Northern Ireland? In comparison with the other carrier to Northern Ireland, British Midland Airways, whose crews stay there, does he not think that this practice is a disgrace?

Such expenditures are a matter for British Airways, but since Northern Ireland is five times safer to stay overnight in than most major United States cities, I find the position inexplicable.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how much of the money spent at Aldergrove airport came from the EEC?

I shall need notice of that question.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the question of the cowardice of British Airways crews has been raised from time to time for years? Cannot those responsible sit down together to sort it out? Since the days when I used to complain about passengers being kept queuing in the rain at Aldergrove, have there not been improvements that are greatly to the credit of those concerned?

The modern facilities at Aldergrove are widely appreciated by the many who use the airport. With regard to the other matter that my hon. Friend raises, I shall meet the chief executive of British Airways, Mr. Roy Watts, when he comes to stay in Northern Ireland shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will report progress on the eradication of terrorism.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Since I last answered questions on 29 April three members of the security forces and two civilians have died as a result of terrorist activity. On 30 April a soldier was killed in an explosion near Belleek in County Fermanagh when his patrol was attacked. On 4 May a policeman was shot dead while on foot patrol in Londonderry and a woman constable was badly wounded in the same attack. On 24 May a soldier in Londonderry died after being run over by an armoured vehicle which had been set on fire with petrol bombs. I draw particular attention to this incident because it seems that the attackers were children. One civilian was shot dead and two others were injured on 12 May when gunmen opened fire on the staff of a greengrocers shop in Belfast. The same day a former member of the UDR was shot dead in Strabane.

Does the Secretary of State agree that cranks who agitate for a ban on plastic bullets should get their priorities right and demand an end to the use of petrol bombs, which have caused inhuman injuries and deaths to members of the security forces?

There is another question on the Order Paper about plastic baton rounds, and I shall answer that later. In general I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although the thoughts of all United Kingdom citizens are with our task force, the patient and brave work of our security forces continues unabated to deal with and extirpate the evils of terrorism in the United Kingdom?

Yes, Sir. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said, and I endorse every word of it.

Can my right hon. Friend give any good reason, other than hostility to Britain, for the Irish Republic not signing the European convention on the prevention of terrorism?

I noticed that my hon. Friend raised that subject with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General the other day. The question was answered then. There is a continuing improvement in the co-operation of security across the border and in some of the actions that have recently been taken on legislation passed by the Government of the Republic, but there is a good deal more to be done.

Since the political objectives of the Dublin Government are indistinguishable from the IRA's aims—one reason why terrorism has lasted for 13 years—will the Government abandon the joint talks with Dublin, because they appear to the northern Ulster people to be an erosion of the link with the rest of the United Kingdom?

I do not accept that, but I accept that the IRA is as big a menace, if not bigger, to a democratic Government in the south as it is to any Government in the North.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep revulsion in Northern Ireland this morning at the announcement that a self-confessed member of the INLA, who has admitted 10 charges of armed robbery, hijacking, possession of guns and membership of the INLA, received a suspended sentence from the court yesterday?

I have had no notice of that episode, but I have great confidence in the Northern Ireland courts.

Will the Secretary of State condemn the junior savages who, aping their mentors, petrol bombed an army vehicle to such an extent that a young soldier in it was killed?

That was a disgraceful incident and, of course, I condemn it. The answer is for parents to keep young people away from those incidents, of which there have been all too many recently in Londonderry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I understand on good authority that since the start of the Falklands crisis there has been in other parts of the United Kingdom, apart from Northern Ireland, a marked reduction in crime? Has there been a similar reduction in terrorism in Northern Ireland?

I do not have statistics to that effect, but the loyalty of the Northern Ireland people to the Government's attitude and the United Kingdom has not been exceeded anywhere in the last few weeks.

The Opposition would like to express sympathy to all those who have suffered as a result of the recent injuries, deaths and murders in Northern Ireland. Is the Secretary of State aware that our sympathy extends in particular to the relatives of the young soldier killed by young bomb throwers? Does the Secretary of State accept that we welcome his decision to hold an inquiry into the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which inquiry we have advocated for a number of years? Does he agree that such an inquiry may help to eradicate terrorism and should therefore be held as soon as possible?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is important that the review of the Act should take account of the recent conclusions of Lord Jellicoe's review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. We hope that it will be near completion before we establish our review body, which has been warmly welcomed by security chiefs in Northern Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has yet arranged a date for his visit to the United States of America for the purpose of countering Irish Republican Army propaganda.

No date has yet been set for the visit that my right hon. Friend intends to make to the United States of America.

When the Secretary of State makes that visit, will he point out to the Americans that people who give money to the IRA are financing activity which we abhor, such as that by the children with their petrol bombs? In view of the answer that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave about the astonishing difference in the safety of staying overnight in Northern Ireland and staying overnight in the United States, will my hon. Friend draw that to the attention of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board so that it might use the statistics as a legitimate means of attracting tourists back to the Province?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will convey that message when he visits the United States. In co-operation with the Northern Ireland Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the effort continues to persuade people in the United States and elsewhere of the folly of contributing to organisations that support the IRA's aims. I am sure that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board is aware of the problem. Indeed, it does a good job in seeking to attract visitors to Northern Ireland shores, but political progress would be a great help.

Does the Minister accept that there has been a great deal of reaction from the Government in countering adverse propaganda in the United States? Will he take steps to present the more positive image of Ulster, not waiting to react to IRA attacks through the media, but speaking positively on behalf of the British people in Ulster? Will he facilitate the use of voluntary agencies, which have been working together in Ulster to present that case more profitably in the United States, bearing in mind that Ulster voices can be more effective in that work than English voices?

A number of Ulster voices in the United States put the case across on behalf of Northern Ireland. Plans are afoot for more such people to do that. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has visited the United States three times to put across the positive industrial argument for Northern Ireland. We shall continue to be as vigorous as we can in presenting our case.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to have further consultations with political parties in Northern Ireland regarding the proposed Assembly.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further response he has received from political parties in Northern Ireland to his constitutional proposals since the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he now makes of political support in Northern Ireland for his proposals for elections to a devolved Assembly.

My main series of talks on the Government's proposals preceded the publication of the White Paper "Northern Ireland: A Framework for Devolution" and publication of the Northern Ireland Bill, which is currently before Parliament; but I shall naturally continue to be available for further discussions with the parties.

Since there seems to be so little support among the political parties on either side of the divide for the proposed Assembly, is it wise to go ahead with the legislation?

Yes, I think that it is wise. Although there is little support from the political parties, one must recognise that it would be difficult to get to the stage where any one political party could be seen to support proposals without making it impossible for the others to take part in anything that came after the proposals. I believe that there is a desire among the people of Northern Ireland for this flexible response and the new initiative that is necessary if Northern Ireland is again to have a degree of self-government and a responsibility for what happens there.

Although most parties might take part in an Assembly which need become neither legislative nor the basis for an Executive—I hope that it will not—which parties endorse the rolling devolution policy set out in the White Paper?

As I have already said, at the moment, none do, but that is not necessarily a disadvantage.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the Market Research Bureau poll which was published earlier this week? Is it not becoming increasingly apparent that the vast majority of the people who live in Northern Ireland would like the Government's initiative to make progress? May we have an assurance that the Government will not falter in their determination to see that the Northern Ireland Bill becomes law during this Session?

From time to time I have told my hon. Friend that one should not necessarily take the results of any one opinion poll too seriously, but that poll shows more widespread support for the Government's constitutional proposals than one would believe from listening to the Northern Ireland party leaders. That is something that we take into account.

If the Secretary of State meets some of the local parties, will he tell them why he thinks that Mr. Charles Haughey thinks that his initiative is one of the most disastrous events that has ever taken place in the history of Anglo-Irish relations? Will the Secretary of State give his opinion in advance?

If I may say so, it would be far better if the Unionist Party started to tell its members why Mr. Haughey is wrong and what he believes in, and therefore why it might be to the advantage of the Unionist Party if it supported my proposals.

When the Secretary of State has discussions with the various Northern Ireland political parties, will he try to find out why there is this strange state of affairs, which has already been mentioned, wherein most of the political parties are opposed to the idea——

All of them.

all of them, and yet there is a poll which says that the people are in favour of it? Will he take into account the fact that some of us, including myself, for reasons completely different from those of the hon. Members behind me on the Unionist Party Bench, are opposed to the proposal because we believe that it was born of desperation and that it is heading back towards the old Stormont, which caused all the trouble?

All I can say is that, for once, the hon. Gentleman has probably hit the nail on the head. Everyone opposes this proposal for different reasons—some because it leads to devolution—that is opposed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—some because it does not give enough power sharing, and some because it gives power sharing. There are countless reasons why people oppose it. The truth is that the people of Northern Ireland deserve something better than just opposition.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent complaints there have been about deaths and injuries caused by plastic bullets; and whether any action has been taken in consequence.

I am well aware of the concern about baton rounds. I do not measure its seriousness by the number of complaints about them. I deeply regret the possibility that their use has resulted in deaths and injuries. But I have a responsibility to enable the security forces to protect themselves when under violent attack. There is no easy alternative: some critics seem not to understand the ferocity of the attacks upon the security forces or the consequences if they fail to maintain order. The law rightly requires the security forces to use no more force than is strictly necessary, and I am in close touch with their commanders about their continuing review of operational policy.

Since, over the past decade, 14 people, seven of them children under the age of 15, have been killed by plastic or rubber bullets, and, in one month of last year alone, 110 people required hospital treatment for plastic bullet injuries, is it not time that the Government imposed a ban on the use of these lethal bullets, instead of continuing and even escalating their use in Northern Ireland and issuing 3,000 of them for use by British police forces, as recently happened?

There is no escalation in the use of plastic bullets in Northern Ireland. I shall give the hon. Gentleman two statistics. When the violence was at its height last year, between January and August, the number of plastic bullets fired was 29,594. In the nine months since then, the number fired has been 225. That, I think, represents a markedly changed attitude and atmosphere. Of course, I want to build on that, but I am not prepared to leave the security forces unprotected.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the European Assembly has no standing, status or right whatsoever to pass resolutions concerning the internal policing and affairs of any of its member States, and that that action is deeply resented in the United Kingdom?

I confirm what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Is it not correct that on many occasions young people under the age of 15 have been used by the IRA to engage in wicked deeds, including the recent occasion to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—the petrol bombing of an Army vehicle, which resulted in the death of a young, courageous, decent soldier?

There are two problems of violence. One involves marauding gangs of youths with petrol bombs, stones, and so on. The other involves the vicious murders perpetrated with, for example, the gun. The two need different treatment. One of the problems is that sometimes the marauding gangs of youths, who start by throwing stones and petrol bombs, are merely a decoy to encourage the murderers with their rifles and other guns to get at our soldiers when they react. There is an interface between the two. In so far as they can be separated, we need to deal with them separately. I have had long talks with the security chiefs, who understand the position fully, and they have my full support in the action that they are taking.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his answers are supported by me and by my right hon. and hon. Friends? However, does he agree that the time has probably come for him and the Secretary of State for Defence to reappraise the need to use plastic bullets in certain circumstances, particularly when children are in the vicinity? Does he agree, arising from that review, that if more regular constraints were imposed, they would avoid the tragic deaths, because not all children throw petrol bombs?

I assure the hon. Member and the House that this matter is under constant reappraisal, as, of course, are other matters of not control. I want to make that absolutely clear. No one recognises better than the security chiefs the repercussions of the tragic death of a young boy, as happened a little while ago. That adds to the problems of security generally and is well understood and well realised. We cannot afford to leave our security forces unprotected by what they consider to be the only effective weapon so far available. I assure the House that this is a matter of deep concern to the security chiefs, the people of Northern Ireland, and, of course, myself. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we keep the matter under close review.

I completely agree with the Secretary of State about the jurisdiction of the European Assembly, but does he not agree that the fact that the Assembly passed the resolution in question was a good propaganda exercise for the Irish Republican Army? Does he accept that the Government's representative at the European Assembly failed to give the Members of that Parliament one piece of evidence to justify the use of plastic bullets in the circumstances in which they are used in Northern Ireland?

I shall have to check on the latter point. I am under the impression that we were asked for details before the debate took place and that we provided them, certainly to those Members of the European Parliament with Conservative affiliations. However, I shall check that. I am certain that the evidence was made available.

We are desperately doing our best to control and break up the numerous riots in Northern Ireland. There were riots on one occasion in Liverpool. From the evidence that is available to me, it seems clear that plastic bullets are now being used beyond the strict rules that govern their use. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that unless something is done to tighten political control of those weapons there is a danger of further alienating the people whom we are seeking to protect?

I do not believe that we can have political control in the accepted sense. Control must be left to the local commander. At the same time, it is obvious that that is a matter of extreme political importance. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am constantly considering that matter and have been considering it in the last week.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about progress with the receivership of the De Lorean Motor Company.

The joint receivers and managers of De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd. announced on 24 May that they were suspending production of cars in Belfast and would make almost all of the employees redundant on 31 May. They made it clear that in their view these decisions were unavoidable because of the large stocks of unsold cars held in the United States of America and Belfast and the withdrawal by a potential investor of his interest in the business. They also stated that if, during the period that would be required to prepare for a realisation of the assets of the company any sound and viable proposals to reactivate the business should come forward, they would consider reopening the plant.

Will my hon. Friend tell me what is the exact status of the company as from 31 May? Does it effectively close down or does it remain on a care-and-maintenance basis with the possibility of reactivation? How much public money is likely to be lost if the company is closed down? Will the company be freed from the American parent, which seems to have bedevilled the negotiations? Will the 4,000 unsold cars belong to Belfast or New York and, if they belong to Belfast, will they be considered as assets of DMC Belfast?

I shall attempt to answer at least some of my hon. Friend's questions. The state of the company is exactly as set out in the answer that I gave. The receivers-managers have decided that they must make preparations for realising the assets of the company. That process will take some time. If, in the meantime, serious bids come forward—one from the United Kingdom is being investigated at the moment—the managers will see whether such a bid will lead to a viable future for the company. If so, they will be prepared to reconsider opening the plant. In the meantime, it had been their intention to keep on a number of employees on the shop floor, as well as staff, so that in the event of an early bid that proved worth considering the plant could be reopened in a satisfactory condition. The steps that are being taken by the work force at the moment mean that unless the situation changes it will not be possible to keep on people on the shop floor, which would make it more difficult for the plant to be reopened. We believe that there are about 3,000 unsold finished cars, other than those in dealers' showrooms. About two-thirds of those belong to the parent or marketing company—DMC—and about 1,000 belong to DMC Ltd., the Belfast company.

In addition to doing everything possible to safeguard the interests of the work force, will the Minister remember the plight of the creditor companies that have been caught up in this disaster?

Both the trade creditors and the work force stand to gain most from the reopening of the plant. That is clear. That is why the receivers, with the encouragement of the Government, have kept the plant in operation for the past three months. Because none of the interests expressed has come to fruition, they have decided, correctly, to suspend production and to set about preparing for the realisation of the assets. If that were to occur, the receivers and managers have made it clear in statements that the trade creditors would be likely to receive little or nothing.

Does the Minister accept that if the assets are sold they will be let go at virtually scrap prices? The taxpayer has poured in many millions of pounds' worth of money? Does the Minister agree that the wisest thing to do with the plant would be to take it over, develop the car, which has been paid for by the taxpayer, as a public enterprise, prepare cars for the European market, give the workers who are sitting-in in desperation a proper basis for full public ownership and remove the firm from the clutches of what is, at best, a controversial entrepreneur?

The Labour Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member undertook this hazardous project. The hon. Gentleman is now advocating further expenditure of public money on a project that is demonstrably non-commercial, because private interests have not been prepared to put their money into it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the current behaviour of some of the work force, whatever the provocation, will act as a severe disincentive to people who might otherwise wish to invest money in the Province and perhaps even in the company?

My hon. Friend is right to refer to provocation, because the shock to the work force at Dunmurry must have been considerable. On the other hand, I must tell the work force that, whatever the shock and unhappiness, that does not justify its present action. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. So long as the sit-in continues, and particularly if the members of the work force insist on preventing spare parts and components from leaving the plant—which could provide for further car sales in the United States—they will prejudice further realisation of the assets.

Does the Minister agree that the provocation, which has led to the takeover of the factory by the work force, was brought about because of the cavalier attitude of the Government and the receivers in refusing to discuss with the trade union representatives the tragedy that was about to take place, bringing with it such tragic redundancies? Does the Minister agree that, as most people were able to envisage what would happen, it would have been less hurtful if the Government had taken the opportunity to discuss with the representatives of the work force what was likely to happen?

I cannot agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. In no way can the behaviour of the receivers and managers be said to be cavalier. They have continued to run the plant for three months, trying to find a bidder for it, without success. I remind the hon. Gentleman, many of whose constituents work at the plant, that they have been paid for a three-day week over the past month, but have worked for only one day a week.

Does the Minister accept that I should have liked to see as much thinking about the company while it was open and selling cars as there has been over its closure? Does the Minister further accept that the Opposition regard the shut-down of the De Lorean project as a tragedy for Northern Ireland? Does he acknowledge that the shut-down has great consequences for the economic future of the Province? That has already been shown by the Hyster company's decision to set up a factory in Dublin rather than in Antrim, because of a lack of confidence in the Government's economic policy. Does the Minister realise that if that firm had slipped through my fingers from the North to the South when I was i he Minister responsible for commerce in Northern Ireland my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) would probably have sacked me on the spot?

There is no connection between the decision of Hyster to go to the Republic and the difficulties of De Lorean. Hyster is a sound company and has demonstrated in Northern Ireland that it is possible to manufacture satisfactorily and make profits. The company that was launched on its way by the right hon. Gentleman's Government was a high-risk company with demonstrably non-commercial prospects. It was a risk that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to take in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, it has not paid off.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will seek to obtain a transcript of the interview given to Radio Telefis Eireann by the Earl of Gowrie on 4 May and place it in the Library.

Yes, Sir. A copy of a transcript of the interview has been placed in the Library today.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the grave disquiet in Northern Ireland about the recorded utterances of his noble Friend, especially his unskilled and inaccurate diagnosis of the Unionist people's mental state? Is he prepared to use his own undoubted skills to facilitate the early retirement of his noble Friend, thus fulfilling his desire to retire to the Republic of Ireland, perhaps even by voluntary redundancy?

I strongly recommend all hon. Members to read what my noble Friend said, because it was a brilliant interview, which set out in a precise way the great difficulties between the two traditions in Northern Ireland. In that context, he was saying to the Unionists that they have the security that they require and that it was wrong for them to continue to believe that the Government were trying to sell them down the river into the South.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Irish Confederation of Trade Unions to discuss unemployment.

Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to discuss various aspects of the Northern Ireland economy, including unemployment. I shall shortly be meeting the Northern Ireland Committee to discuss the Industrial Development Board proposals.

When the Minister meets the ICTU, will he tell it what plans the Government have to reduce the appalling level of unemployment that has grown under this Government from 61,000 in May 1979 to 113,000 and from 10·5 per cent. to nearly 20 per cent.? Those figures do not take into account the present crisis at De Lorean.

I frequently tell the Northern Ireland trade unions both of the benefit to the Northern Ireland economy of the Government's economic strategy—which has already demonstrated its success—and about the Government's recognition of the needs of the Province, as is shown by the massive resources that they are prepared to make available to support industrial development and therefore help to overcome the unemployment problem.

Would it not be to the general advantage if the trade union movement were represented through political channels in the House as it is for the rest of the United Kingdom?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is not the case in the House, and I do not see that it would necessarily benefit Northern Ireland if it were to be the case, either in the Assembly that will come about as a result of the elections, or directly at Westminster.

When the Minister next meets the trade unions, will he give them an assessment of the cost of unemployment benefits, which now runs at about £5,000 for each man out of work? Will he advise his colleagues to try to get a sensible balance between public expenditure for unemployment and related expenditure as opposed to aid to industry, as other Western European countries do more successfully?

One must take into account not only the financial cost of unemployment but the social cost. That is why the sums made available to the Northern Ireland economy are as large as they are.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet Ministers from the Republic of Ireland to discuss security.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to meet the Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland.

I have no immediate plans to do so.

Perhaps my right hon. Friend could bring forward some plans fairly quickly and talk to Mr. Haughey and his Ministers, not only about taking people from the South into the North if they have committed offences in the North, but about our security needs in the South Atlantic. Will he tell Mr. Haughey that the longer that he acts as a henchman for General Galtieri the more concerned people in this country will be about the rights of his citizens to vote in our elections?

Some of the things that my hon. Friend would wish me to tell Mr. Haughey might help and some undoubtedly would not. That might be a good reason for not seeing him just yet.

Will the Minister try to disregard such hotheads [Interruption.]—and fatheads as well, such as the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who are always trying to create a gap between Britain and the Republic of Ireland? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is in everyone's interests, as suggested in the recent lecture by Dr. Garrett FitzGerald, who may be the next Prime Minister of the Republic, to have courts in common in the whole of Ireland? That might act as a bridge. Is it not in everyone's interests to have peace between us and to disregard those un-siren-like voices that are trying to cause trouble?

It is some surprise to me that the hon. Gentleman describes himself in the manner that he does. We must draw a sharp distinction between the utterances of some politicians and perhaps the true mood of the people of the Irish Republic. If we do that, perhaps some of the peace to which Dr. FitzGerald draws attention, and the goodwill that exists between our countries, can be better fulfilled.

asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the Falkland Islands.

The reply to this question is inevitably longer than usual.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed reply and acknowledge what she said about the United Nations. Will she take this opportunity to make it clear that the diplomatic proposals that were put forward, and that have been continually put forward by the United Kingdom, contained proposals for a British withdrawal, but that as the position has now changed, and since those proposals have been rejected consistently by Argentina, there can be no question of a British withdrawal of forces?

My hon. Friend is quite right. In the published proposals that we debated last Thursday there was a linked withdrawal of British forces and Argentine forces. Those proposals have been withdrawn and as our ambassador to the United Nations made clear when he voted for the resolution, there can now be no question of a British withdrawal. He said:

"We are talking about Argentine withdrawal. We cannot now accept that Argentine withdrawal be linked in any way to parallel British withdrawal."

May I first join the right hon. Lady in the expressions of feeling about our forces and their families, and our concern that the fighting should be brought to an end as soon as possible with the minimum number of casualties? On the diplomatic aspect of the matter, to which she referred, while it is clearly true that the reaffirmation of resolution 502 involves the withdrawal of the Argentine forces, does the right hon. Lady also agree that it is right, and in conformity with resolution 502, that there should be further proposals on the table, if not necessarily the same as offered previously, nevertheless one that will offer the Argentines an alternative to unconditional surrender? Does the right hon. Lady agree that that is a sensible approach, that it will reduce the danger of casualties, and that it should be included in her response to the Secretary-General?

The essential feature of resolution 502 is the unconditional demand for immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falklands. That was to be followed by negotiations. Negotiations were, of course, in progress when the Argentine invaded. They had been in progress for some considerable time, but the Falkland Islanders did not wish British sovereignty to pass in any way to the Argentine. We should co-operate with the Secretary-General, but in the terms I have stated.

What I was asking the right hon. Lad) to do was not in any way in conflict with resolution 502, and certainly not in conflict with what was decided at the United Nations yesterday. But the Government will have to make some response to those proposals. My suggestion—I believe it to be a sensible proposal that will reduce the prospect of casualties—is that the British Government should be making some proposals in response to the Secretary-General's approaches which will offer an alternative to unconditional surrender. If the fighting continues to the bitter end, many more lives will be lost.

The objective of sending British forces and to try to retake by force what was taken from us by force is, first, repossession, secondly, restoration of British administration and thirdly, reconstruction, followed by consultation with the islanders—a true consultation—about their wishes and interests in the future.

Is that all the right hon. Lady is going to say—

I hope so.

in response to the Secretary-General's approaches? The resolution that was passed by the Security Council yesterday was properly supported by the British Government. It envisaged discussions on this matter. I urge the Government to consider more far-reaching proposals than what the right hon. Lady has given from the Dispatch Box today.

The talks with the Secretary-General will be about unequivocal withdrawal of Argentine forces in accordance with resolution 502 as a condition for a ceasefire. After that, we shall be in repossession of the islands. We then wish to restore British administration. Administration has to continue under existing British law and under existing democratic institutions. There will be a great deal of reconstruction work to do, and also talk about development of further resources. It will take some time for the islanders to crystallise their views, but then we must have discussions with them about the longer-term interests. It will be most unwise for us to give away any of that in advance.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on the Falkland Islands.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I have just given.

Since major military action may even now be taking place, will my right hon. Friend confirm that dictatorships rarely understand the moral strength and courage of a democracy and that democracies themselves understand the need to avoid probing questions on military details and secrets that might unintentionally help the enemy?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We enjoy full freedom of speech in a democracy. I know that my hon. Friend and many hon. Members are very much aware that too much discussion about the timing and details of operations can only help the enemy and hinder and make things more difficult for our forces. In wartime there used to be a phase "Careless talk costs lives". It still holds good.

Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her answer to my right hon. Friend? In view of the further military pressure that is now being exerted by British forces, will the Prime Minister now undertake to retable the British proposed draft interim agreement so that, without loss of military momentum in the interim but, equally, to avoid risk of substantial loss of life in retaking Port Stanley, these proposals, acceptable to Britain and requiring withdrawal of Argentine forces from the islands, shall lie on the table unamended, ready for immediate Argentine signature as a condition of ceasefire?

No, Sir. I reaffirm what I said to the right hon. Gentleman.

Will the Prime Minister accept that many hon. Members understand that, following the repossession of part of the Falkland Islands, it is reasonable for the Government to make it clear that the exact parallelism of the withdrawal procedure that was included in the Government's document put before the House of Thursday now has to be re-thought? However, will the Prime Minister be careful before she abandons the principles embraced in that document? It won Britain many friends in the world as being a reasonable negotiating position on which it might be possible to achieve withdrawal of the Argentine forces, leading to an honourable negotiated settlement that would last.

The proposals in that document were for an interim arrangement so that we should not have further conflict. The proposals in that document were rejected. We have now gone into the islands to do what I believe the islanders wish—to repossess them, to restore British administration, to reconstruct the life of the islands and then to consult the islanders on what they want. That will obviously depend in some measure on what other nations are prepared to do, how much they are prepared to invest, how much they are prepared to develop the islands and, of course, on what arrangements can be procured for the long-term security of the islands. I am sure that that is the right way to approach the problem.

Can my right hon. Friend give any information about whether known arms suppliers to Argentina have agreed to British requests to cease supplies pending a cessation of hostilities? Can she say whether they are keeping their word on this important subject?

There appear to be very active efforts on the part of the Argentines to secure further supplies of missiles and spares and armaments in various parts of the world. We have obviously been in touch with the nations concerned about this, and the political heads, but we are very much aware that supplies may be reaching Argentina, not direct from those countries, but through third parties.

Does the Prime Minister appreciate that the closing quote in her speech yesterday

"If England do rest but true"

I am sorry if by quoting Shakespeare I caused offence. I did consider it for a moment, but thought that I could not really edit Shakespeare. As a matter of fact, I thought that Shakespeare belonged to Scotland almost as much as to the rest of the United Kingdom. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I went to Perth and made a major speech, in which I pointed out that some of the best characters who are regarded as belonging to the whole of the United Kingdom are distinctly Scottish in character. I gladly pay tribute to them and to the splendid efforts of Scottish Service men, merchant men and people everywhere.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 27 May.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that the long-term security of the islanders and peace in the South Atlantic could be better established were the Government to make a clearer statement at this stage of the basis on which the foundations for such a settlement could be achieved?

It is part of democracy that one consults the people themselves to find out their wishes and interests. I should have thought that every hon. Member understood that. After the hostilities are over it will take some time for the views of the islanders to crystallise. Those views will depend in some measure on what other people are prepared to do. All this will take time to talk through, and I am sure that we are right to take that time.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Recalling that Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd and Mr. Speaker King often used to let Question Time to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) run for a quarter of an hour extra, and accepting that, quite rightly, the Prime Minister took some time today to answer a substantive question, is there not a case for allowing Prime Minister's Question Time to run to another five minutes?

I well recall, during the days of that extra time, the strong complaints that came from supporters of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).