asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for reopening talks with the political parties in Northern Ireland to lead to the creation of a new political forum there.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which political organisations he has recently approached for discussions; and which have agreed to an exchange of views on the present political situation in Northern Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the Government's policy for constitutional progress in the Province.

I have recently had separate meetings with the leading members of the Official Unionist Party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, the Alliance Party and the Democratic Unionist Party.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and extend good wishes for the success of these talks. As he knows some of us feel that they should have taken place earlier. Will he indicate—I think this arises from his statement—that he has a wide remit in terms of detailed proposals? He talks about not imposing solutions. Will he not close his mind to the possibility that, even if he cannot get agreement from all political parties in Northern Ireland, it might be right this time to proceed and back his own judgment in the end?

I shall, of course, be prepared to consider the latter point, depending how the bilateral talks between the parties and the officials go.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, though the security situation has eased considerably—Labour Members who have been to Northern Ireland during the past week have observed that at first hand—there is urgency about the political initiative which he is taking bearing fruit? Will he accept from me that if the intransigent attitudes of the past are still maintained by some hon. Gentlemen opposite it could throw to the winds the good work that has been achieved so far? I do not want to be pessimistic, but I am worried about that aspect. Something must be achieved against the good background that now exists.

My hon. Friend is quite right. If people take their old-fashioned, intransigent attitudes, we shall not make any progress in these talks. But the meetings with party leaders so far have been responsible and constructive, and our approach at this stage is very positive.

Will the Secretary of State take the House into his confidence by saying what he means when he refers to

"partial devolution as an interim stage"?

Of course, the intention is to bridge the gulf between the local district councils and Westminster, but not on a local government administration basis. My intention is to devolve back to Northern Ireland real powers, not necessarily legislative. There will be an Assembly based on proportional representation. It will have a consultative rôle regarding legislation, but the devolved powers, whether on transport, environment, planning or whatever, will go to committees. I hope that there will be a partnership basis to run them.

Before the Secretary of State becomes involved and entangled in these protracted and possibly very frustrating discussions, will he take practical steps to restore to the people of Northern Ireland the missing upper tier of local government, bearing in mind what has been said by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee)?

No, I do not think that would be right. It would frustrate the efforts of all the parties. My officials and I are embarking upon the devolution of real power in Northern Ireland as an interim step towards the devolution of a legislative Assembly and the whole range of powers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while we were meeting political parties in Northern Ireland, some criticism was made about his policy along the lines of the previous question and that his proposals had not been more specific? Will he make it abundantly clear that, if we are to find any solution that will have the broad support of both sections of the community, it is incumbent on the politicians in the various parties in Ulster to make a positive contribution, and to spell out what they think and how they will meet the criterion?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's dilemma, but that is the dilemma of Northern Ireland. The political parties will not spell out specifically exactly what they want. My approach is one of flexibility. I expect that, if the talks with my officials get off the ground, there will be an input of ideas by both sides and all parties to flesh out the framework that I have outlined.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while we warmly welcome the talks that he is holding, the Opposition consider that it is his duty to produce a constitutional plan for Northern Ireland? We suggest that he cannot just leave that to the political parties. Will he reconsider what he has just said about restoring democratic control to local government? This is a very serious and important matter, notwithstanding the question of a future Assembly.

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's views and of those of the official Unionist Party, as explained by Harry West in Northern Ireland—namely, that they would like a local government tier. But if we are to make progress on the policy of Her Majesty's Government, shared by the parties in this House, to give Northern Ireland an Assembly and a full range of powers, we must try to make progress in that regard. I hope, therefore, that I shall receive the support of the major parties in the House as I gradually tread through this minefield. The reason that I do not place before the parties a blueprint in detail is that the parties in Northern Ireland would immediately fragment again.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the official Unionist Party in Northern Ireland seems to have a somewhat schizophrenic approach to future developments? One section believes that there should be devolved government in Northern Ireland. Another section is hell bent on bringing about integration, having restored to Northern Ireland the local government functions which caused the disaster of the past 50 years and which would lead to total integration. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the absence of a devolved Parliament, no attempt should be made to hand back to local authorities, as at present constituted, the powers that they formerly had?

My hon. Friend spells out clearly that local government to the minority populus of Northern Ireland would indicate that it would be treading the integrationist path. Therefore, they would not be prepared, in any circumstances, to participate in that sort of role. I hope that the Opposition will recognise that, if I am gradually to solve the political problems of the Province, we must try to make headway through this attempt—namely, bilateral talks with officials—to flesh out the framework.

rose—

Order. I allowed much longer on that Question because it clearly was a major issue, but we must move on more quickly.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland it he will make a statement on the discussions the Department of Commerce has had to date with Container Re-furbishing Ltd., Newry, so far as they effect the position of the employees and the prospects for employment.

Recent discussions between Container Refurbishing Limited and my officials have centred on a request that the Government should guarantee the payment of certain grants before the end of November. As the company had not fulfilled one of the conditions upon which the grants were offered, and as other financial information relating to the future trading of the company had not been supplied, I have been unable to accede to the company's request. During these discussions I have been very conscious of the interests of the workers concerned.

Will the Minister of State take it that I am grateful to him for having kept me constantly in touch with the details of the very difficult and regrettable situation that has arisen? Will he assure the House that, within the powers of his Department, he will have regard, first, to the interests of the existing or past employees, and second, to the employment situation in Newry?

Yes, I think that I can give the right hon. Gentleman assurances on those matters. I have already given them to the workers involved there. But it causes me great distress to find that a group of weekly-paid workers are owed two weeks' wages and monthly-paid workers at least a month's wages. The firm owes its workers a total of nearly £7,500. I find that very distressing, and I shall do all in my power to ensure that the money legally due to them is paid into the pockets of those people as quickly as I can.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to publish the report and findings of the Poleglass housing inquiry.

I hope to be able to publish the report on the Poleglass inquiry and the Government's decisions in about two months. This timing depends upon early receipt from the Planning Appeals Commission of an outstanding part of the public inquiry report.

In view of the appalling housing conditions in the city of Belfast, particularly in West Belfast, does not the Minister think that there has been a disgraceful and completely unjustified delay in producing the report? Can he give any indication of steps that he may be taking now? When the report is available, how quickly will he be able to get houses constructed on the site?

I share all my hon. Friend's fears and worries about the situation in West Belfast. It is extremely bad. In fact, the conditions are the worst in the whole of Belfast. However, I must point out that the Planning Appeals Commission is an independent body, and there is little that I can do to press it along its way. As for West Belfast, I and the officials in my Department are actively looking at the problem there, and we hope that, whatever decision is taken at the Poleglass inquiry, when the report lands on my desk, its findings will be associated with all the other investigations that we are carrying out and these will be embodied in a final report.

First, does the Minister accept that the Poleglass scheme would be a flagrant breach of the Matthew Stop Line? Second, would the new conurbation not be prone to the same malignant pressures which are exerted upon Twinbrook? Finally, does the Minister accept that the Hannahstown area would be an alternative site for housing required for West Belfast, and that that would not mean a major breach of the Matthew Stop Line?

The hon. Member is merely restating all the views, attitudes and opinions which have been rehearsed over the years in Belfast and which have been put before the inquiry. I simply have now to await the result of that inquiry and make a decision on the basis of its report.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he remains satisfied with the level of house building in the Province.

I would hesitate to use the word "satisfied" about any aspect of housing in Northern Ireland. A great deal of progress has been and is being made in the provision of new public sector housing outside Belfast. My chief concern is with speeding up necessary new building in the redevelopment areas, especially in inner Belfast, and the improvement of older houses. I am disappointed at the level of private house building in the lower price bracket. I trust that measures now being taken or contemplated will reverse the downward trend.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Have there been any signs of an increase in private house purchase as a result of the wide range of new measures which he is introducing, and can he foresee any material improvement in the house building programme in Belfast in the very near future?

In the private sector, I have announced the introduction of the option mortgage scheme, and we are currently looking at the prospect of equity sharing in the private sector. We know from figures available to us that there are about 7,000 houses in the private sector under construction. That figure will not necessarily translate itself into 7,000 completions in a given year, but all the signs are that at least in the private sector we shall be picking up.

Have not the Government created a scandalous situation whereby, on average, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has more people, particularly young married couples, living in overcrowded and substandard housing? Is the Minister aware that the Government have created only two records: first for the number of jobs for officials; secondly, for the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland?

This is a serious subject. Anyone who looks at the history of housing in Northern Ireland cannot lay all the problems at the doorstep of the Government in the way that the hon. Gentleman has done. Of course, there are problems, historically and otherwise, but we are trying to cope with them. My officials, myself and everybody in housing, the Executive, the building industry, and the trade unions are trying to do what we can to overcome all those problems that were erected in the past. Contributions such as that from the hon. Gentleman simply will not help.

Does the Minister agree that the record of 1968, 1969 and 1970 shows that it is possible to build substantially more houses in Northern Ireland than are currently being built? What is he doing to motivate the Housing Executive to meet its responsibility?

The hon. Gentleman is right. In the past few years we have not been building as many houses, publicly or privately, as we were 10 years ago. But, as I have explained—and the policy has been approved and accepted by hon. Gentlemen opposite—we have now switched the public sector drive away from greenfield development towards inner city redevelopment, particularly in Belfast. We simply cannot move in that area as fast as we should like, for obvious reasons.

Can the Minister tell us how many hon. Gentlemen opposite who are raising the problem of the shortage of houses voted in the House against public expenditure cuts?

I do not wish to rub it in Hon. Members opposite know that there is no subject in Northern Ireland that is surrounded with more difficulty than is housing. Only two days ago I announced legislation repealing Acts going back to 1917 that restricted rents to 50p a week. Hon. Gentleman opposite had been going along happily with those Acts of Stormont—and possibly of this House also—for many years. We are now trying to put matters right.

I must ask for shorter answers, otherwise we shall not reach Questions that could be reached.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the number of hackney carriage licences issued in Belfast in each of the past three years.

The number of hackney carriage licences issued for Belfast in each of the past three years was 634 in 1974, 734 in 1975, and 735 in 1976.

As that is clearly not the total number of taxis, will the Minister accept that the large number of un licensed, overcrowded and potentially dangerous taxis in Belfast at present is very much out of line with his policy of fair and effective enforcement of the law?

I am sorry, but the figure that I have given represents the total number of taxis operating in that city. If the hon. Gentleman has different information, I shall be pleased to hear it.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the procedures for the interrogation of suspects carried out by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will investigate the allegations about the conduct of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the light of a recent Thames Television documentary film.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further steps he has in mind for combating the current campaign of unfounded and generalised allegations of misconduct against the Royal Ulster Constabulary which is designed to undermine the morale of the force and the confidence of the public.

The detailed procedures laid down by the Chief Constable for the questioning of suspects include specific safeguards against the possibility of deliberate ill-treatment. Any complaints against the RUC are thoroughly investigated. Those alleging a criminal offence are referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who decides whether to proceed against those concerned. Details of every complaint and of the subsequent inquiry are open to scrutiny by an independent Police Complaints Board.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the serious allegations made by Thames Television recently about interrogation procedures in Castlereagh ought to be investigated by his own Department, particularly as they were based on the testimony of a number of doctors? Does he not think that that is necessary, both because such procedures as were alleged—if, indeed, they happened—would be in contravention of Section 6 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and also because they would be a blemish on the reputation of the RUC, which has been gaining much more widespread general acceptability in the Province as a whole under Chief Constable Newman?

No. I have not felt that the accusations were strong enough for my Department or myself to intervene. The Thames Television programme on the occasion referred to was riddled with unsubstantiated accusations. I said that it was irresponsible and insensitive, and I still believe that it was. That was the third programme that Thames Television had put out. The first was about the black side of the Queen's visit; the second was a film about prison conditions in Northern Ireland, within 48 hours of which the senior prison officer was murdered; and on this last occasion the Chief Constable had to issue an instruction, on the same night as that film went out, to let every policeman in Northern Ireland know that his life was at greater risk than before.

Would it not have been in the public interest if the producer of the programme had notified the right hon. Gentleman of his anxieties and asked for an inquiry, instead of giving widespread publicity to unsubstantiated allegations, which can only undermine the integrity of the security forces?

I do not think that reporters or television producers should operate in that fashion, or that it is right for me to be the referee or the judge. It so happens that Thames Television is a member of the IBA. It has a code of conduct, and it believes that it worked within it. I am sorry that it allowed the programme to go out.

Does the Secretary of State feel that it is significant that every time the terrorists are under pressure their allies come to the rescue with all manner of allegations against the security forces in general?

Yes. It could be good copy; it could be good television. The reporters may feel that they have been taken on, but they do not mind, if it is good copy. I am absolutely against Press censorship but I feel that in the conditions of Northern Ireland, Press men and people connected with the media must act responsibly and with a proper degree of sensitivity.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we are at one with him in the remarks that he has just made, and that we agree with him that censorship is abhorrent? But have not the BBC and the IBA a moral responsibility to place a higher value on the lives of police officers and prison officers—one recalls that Mr. Irvine's murder followed his television interview—than on sensational programmes, which the right hon. Gentleman ironically described as "good television"? Have these authorities, with their responsibility to the British people, ignored the representations that the Secretary of State made, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave)?

First, one has to recognise that cheque-book television is much more dramatic and dangerous than cheque-book journalism. It can quickly frighten and it can more easily incite. We have had an example of that. All I say is that within Northern Ireland that is self-evident and should be taken into consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

I have regular meetings with the Chief Constable, and expect to meet him again next week.

In view of recent allegations about police brutality at Castlereagh and elsewhere and the fact that in the first instance the RUC investigates these complaints against itself, will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Chief Constable the question whether it would be fairer to extend the independent element of inquiry into police complaints by giving the new Police Board the responsibility of investigating all complaints against the police, including complaints of criminal misbehaviour by the police?

I hope that my hon. Friend will follow this matter carefully. The independent Police Complaints Board which has been established in Northern Ireland has been operative since 1st September this year. Complaints and reports go to the Board, and if it wishes, it can make a further scrutiny of those complaints.

When the Secretary of State next sees the Chief Constable will he consider with him the advisability of publishing all the evidence that he has of deliberate plots and schemes that have been prepared by the IRA to discredit the RUC, particularly in relation to self-inflicted injuries, and will he make this information known?

I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Chief Constable. But if the hon. Gentleman were a regular reader of the Irish Press he would have seen that the Chief Constable has often revealed information about proven cases of prisoners inflicting wounds on themselves and trying to use that as evidence against the RUC. It is often published in the Northern Ireland Press.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, because of the difficult task facing the RUC and the danger that it faces day after day it is high time that he allowed it to have the weapons that have been promised for so long? Vehicles are long overdue for delivery. The RUC should be equipped with these vehicles and weapons immediately.

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. All the M1 carbines that the RUC wanted have now been delivered, and training has taken place. I have increased the establishment of the vehicles, and the RUC is receiving them now. Almost all the vehicles which were required—properly protected—have been delivered.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) that many professional medical men—doctors who have taken an oath—have put their reputation at stake? They have made the allegations as well. In the interests of everyone, and particularly in the interests of the police, will my right hon. Friend agree to afford such facilities as will decide them one way or another?

As regards affording facilities, my hon. Friend will know that Amnesty International has decided to go to the Province to make an investigation itself, and I have decided that it will get full co-operation. The organisation will have explained to it the complaints procedures. We shall give it what information we can, but not on individual cases because most of those are sub judice. I have no fear of the organisation coming to the Province and making a full examination.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to lay an order requiring compulsory use of seat belts in Northern Ireland.

It is my intention to publish a proposal for a draft Roads and Road Traffic Order in Council early in December in which power will be sought to require the driver and front passenger of certain motor vehicles to wear seat belts.

Is the Minister aware that the reason the legislation on seat belts did not go through this House was that a large number of unresolved dilemmas and difficulties were brought out in debate? Would it not be calamitous for him to short-circuit those awkward questions and that debate by laying an Order in Council? Further, might it not be risking human life to require seat belts to be worn in areas where there could be car bombs or terrorist attacks, for seat belts could delay the driver in escaping from a vehicle?

The hon. Member is wrong on the first point. The order will be subject to affirmative resolution and there will be a full-ranging discussion on the subject. There will be no denial of the democratic process. As for his second point, those who would be affected by the wearing of seat belts in a security sense will be exempted under the legislation.

Would the Government be seeking to make this change in the law of Ireland if they had to do it in the same way as they have to change the law in any other part of the kingdom?

The right hon. Member should know—he has made no comment so far on the subject—that the proposals stemmed from an independent inquiry set up in Northern Ireland to examine road conditions in Northern Ireland. The first recommendation was that the wearing of seat belts should be made compulsory. The right hon. Member will equally know that in other aspects of the law he and his hon. Friends are pressing the Government to take action of a unique kind for Northern Ireland.

As an estimated 60 lives could be saved every year in Northern Ireland if the order were implemented, is it not sheer irresponsibility for hon. Members opposite to use delaying tactics which may cause deaths?

My hon. Friend is right, and I think that the people of Northern Ireland would regard it with the utmost cynicism if the proposal for seat belts for Northern Ireland was beaten down on a procedural point in the House of Commons.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition take a very serious view of the constitutional questions involved here? I support what my hon. Friends have just said. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government's Bill to make compulsory the wearing of seat belts is not even in the Queen's speech and is not being revived in this Session? In that case, why is Northern Ireland being singled out for this treatment by Order in Council? Will he explain the constitutional practice of trying to extend what is sensitive primary legislation to Northern Ireland in this way?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I cannot predict with any certainty, but we shall be introducing measures for Northern Ireland that were not in the Queen's Speech, and I am sure that they will receive the support of the hon. Gentleman.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has entirely missed the point? This is a constitutional issue. Why has Northern Ireland been singled out as a guinea pig by an Order in Council for a sensitive bit of social legislation of this kind?

It is true that this is a sensitive issue, but many other issues in Northern Ireland are treated in a unique way and the hon. Gentleman does not object to that being done. We shall bring this measure to the House, and it will be subject to debate. It will be an affirmative order and can be defeated at the end of the day.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give an assurance that the Government are giving the maximum assistance to Short Bros. Ltd. in its efforts to acquire the right to manufacture Britten-Norman aircraft together with the jigs and tools connected therewith.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Chairman of Short Brothers and Harland about the proposed take-over by the company of a substantial part of the Fairey Britten-Norman Company.

The Government have maintained regular and close communications with Short Brothers and have given the company every encouragement in its efforts to acquire on appropriate terms the trading assets relating to the Britten-Norman aicraft through negotiation with the Receiver of Britten-Norman (Bembridge) Limited and the President of the Tribunal of Commerce in Belgium.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he fully appreciate the importance of this acquisition to the future rôle of the aircraft side of Short Brothers Limited, and also to fill the ugly gap left by the closure of RAF Sydenham?

Yes, and I appreciate the help that the right hon. Gentleman and the work force in Sydenham have given me with this project. That is why we are following it up as hard as we possibly can. It is the only thing on the stocks that could be helpful to the work force at Sydenham, and I give the assurance that this matter will be followed up as closely as possible.

Will the hon. Gentleman look at this, not only in the interests of employment in Northern Ireland, but because it is a particularly fine aircraft and is most important to air communications in Scotland and throughout the world?

Yes, of course. That is why Short Brothers Limited in Northern Ireland has a lead, and why the aircraft will be a valuable asset to the existing marketing arrangements of the company.

Is the Minister aware that the Britten-Norman aircraft was originated in the Isle of Wight, where 240 were built, and that, although my constituency has no great objections to the proposed take-over by Short Brothers Limited, we seek assurances that the employment of more than 300 people in the Isle of Wight who were responsible for the design and fitting out of the aircraft will remain in the Isle of Wight, where we now have a 9 per cent. unemployment rate?

Yes, Sir. I understand the difficulties and what 9 per cent. unemployment means in such an area, but in unemployment terms in Northern Ireland I am talking about figures ranging between 30 per cent. and an average of 12 per cent. But that does not help. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Managing Director of Short Brothers Limited has assured the trade union interest at Bern-bridge that he has no intention of decimating the Bembridge labour force. On the contrary, he proposes to retain as many of the work force as he reasonably can.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what future action he is going to take to weaken the sectarian base of Ulster's educational system.

The Government's firm policy is to encourage integrated education wherever there is a local wish for it. There is, of course, no question of the Government attempting to force anyone to act against his will, nor of withdrawing public financial support from denominational schools. But the Government have been glad to take every opportunity to encourage school authorities to consider integration. This has been done in the recently published discussion paper on pre-school provision, in the inspectorate's feasibility study of sixth form colleges, and in the setting up of a working party on school management arrangements, which is to look particularly at the implications for integration.

Is the Minister aware that, over the years, opinion polls have suggested a very high measure of support in Northern Ireland for integration? The latest poll suggested about 86 per cent. support among both Catholics and Protestants. Will the Government now get a move on and come forward with some firm and effective proposals?

I am aware of the sincerity with which the hon. Member puts his question, but opinion polls in Northern Ireland can produce one answer and practical experience quite another. Whilst we are prepared to support the principle, wherever it appears to come forth, generally speaking we see no reason to tamper with the existing system.

Is it not difficult to seek to dissuade citizens in Northern Ireland from availing themselves of the right which we vindicate for them in Great Britain of having their children educated in a religious environment if they so wish?

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. I doubt whether most Opposition Members or, indeed, Members on the Government Benches, would advocate changes in Northern Ireland which they would not advocate in their own constituencies.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what the Government's attitude will be to the Private Member's Bill on this subject, to be reintroduced today by Lord Dunleath in another place? Will he explain why the Government seem to be keen on introducing into Northern Ireland legislation on comprehensive education but strangely reluctant, or slow, to do anything about the far more divisive sectarian segregation in the Province?

Comprehensive education and the principle embodied in it are possible. The other route that the hon. Gentleman would urge us along is not possible. My noble Friend will be replying to the debate in the House of Lords today. We are in favour in principle, but that is as far as we and he will go this afternoon.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to introduce legislation to repeal the Payments of Debt (Emergency Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Act 1971 during the present parliamentary Session.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is, however, actively considering the whole problem of public debt in Northern Ireland and hopes to be able to make a statement shortly.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the circumstances which prompted the passage of this Act six years ago have now changed radically and that the continuance of the practice of the unilateral reduction of social security benefits and wages by the State is a dangerous precedent for the rest of the United Kingdom?

No, Sir. I do not agree.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy that the farm-gate price of milk in Northern Ireland should be on a par with the rest of the United Kingdom after 1st January 1978.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have been considering this complex problem for some time and are continuing to do so. It is our intention to take all practicable steps, consistent with financial constraints and the common agricultural policy, to ensure the continued prosperity of the Northern Ireland dairy industry.

Is the Minister aware that disaster is now only a month away, and similar bland answers to that which he has given today have been given for several months now? Is it not time that he came up with something concrete?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall do all in our power to conclude our considerations on this matter. We hope to make a statement as early as we can.

asked the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Dublin.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Will the Prime Minister explain to Mr. Lynch that any call from the Irish Government for a long-term British disengagement from the North would only intensify and prolong the current IRA campaign in the North?

I am not going to Dublin, but I think that on the last occasion when the Taoiseach and I met we discussed these matters, and the communiqué that was published afterwards represented our views very clearly.

Will the Prime Minister ask Mr. Lynch to review immediately the situation in which Provisional IRA members wanted for crimes in Northern Ireland are not extradited from the Republic, despite the fact, for instance, that the Republic has successfully sought the extradition from Holland of an alleged IRA member who was wanted on a charge of attempted armed robbery?

I am not going to Dublin, but it is the case that the Government of the Republic have taken action in certain very serious cases—including one in particular that is in everyone's mind—and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so.

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the Heads of State of the EEC.

I expect to meet His Majesty The King of the Belgians and the President of the French Republic, as well as the Heads of Government of other EEC countries, on the occasion of the meeting of the European Council in Brussels on 5th and 6th December.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Heads of State, will he stress not only the material benefits of reforming the CAP but the political benefits of the early admission of Greece, Portugal and Spain? Does he agree that Mediterranean democracy would benefit from this, as would the development of a non-federalist Europe?

On many occasions the Government have made their position clear to the Heads of Government of Greece, Spain and Portugal, namely, that we would welcome their accession to the Community. We believe that it would be a means of strengthening democracy in those countries. We believe that it would also be for the benefit of democracy in Europe as a whole as well as for the material well-being of the citizens of those countries.

Since the House last night decisively rejected the proposition for proportional representation in respect of Scotland, will the Prime Minister pursue that principle in respect of Europe? When he meets his EEC colleagues, will he explain to them that, while he has taken no notice of the Liberals in respect of devolution on this matter, he will equally take no notice of them in respect of proportional representation in European elections?

No, Sir. I do not think we can draw a parallel line between what happens on devolution in Scotland, and the method of election there, and what happens in the EEC.

When the Prime Minister meets the Heads of Government of the EEC States, will he point out to them today's announcement of the increase in the volume of investment in United Kingdom manufacturing, distributive and service industries, which is quite remarkable?

I shall have great pleasure in looking up those figures and in indicating to the Heads of Government what I know is the case—I think the whole House will welcome it—that there has been a substantial increase in the level of investment both in manufacturing industry and in the service industries in the third quarter of 1977. I hope that that will continue to be the case in the months ahead. I believe that the increase is particularly pleasing in plant and machinery.

As the Prime Minister told the Heads of State in Europe that he would use his best endeavours to get direct elections to the European Parliament, will he give the House a categoric assurance that all his Ministers will be voting for the Bill tonight?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits until 10 o'clock.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has always taken a slightly less pro-Market stance than many of his colleagues, which certainly does not compare with the pro-European party opposite? In view of that, why has he found it necessary to change the free vote that we had last July on direct elections to one in which Ministers are being placed in the predicament that soma, of them will be in tonight? Is it purely because of Liberal support? If that is the case, he has no need to worry about them. They are frightened to death of an election at any time.

Nobody need be in any predicament tonight. They are all Members of this House. But the policy of the Government is quite clear and has been stated by me on behalf of the Cabinet.

asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

The hon. Member may assume that I do not intend to make any changes in ministerial appointments or responsibilities—including my taking on any of the existing responsibilities of other Ministers—unless and until I make a statement to the contrary.

Will the Prime Minister reconsider his decision in view of his right hon. Friend's policy of virtually ignoring the responsible nationalists within Rhodesia, his obsession with the Patriotic Front and its guerilla forces, and his apparent refusal and reluctance to support an internal settlement in Rhodesia based on adult universal suffrage?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can really take that view, considering that my right hon. Friend spent two and a half hours yesterday with Mr. James Chikerema, who represents Bishop Muzorewa.

What did he say?

What he said is a different matter. The hon. Gentleman was asking me why he was ignored, and one cannot ignore someone and spend two and a half hours with him.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in contrast to the silly allegations that we have heard from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about the Foreign Secretary, in his work on Rhodesia the Foreign Secretary has been the first Minister for a long time to succeed in bringing some movement into this really difficult question, and that he has, above all, gained the co-operation and respect of the American Administration in that work? Therefore, may I put this silly question to a serious purpose by asking the Prime Minister whether any progress is to be reported in the efforts of the Foreign Secretary in bringing about a solution in not only Rhodesia but Namibia?

My hon. Friend is quite right. There has been considerable movement in Rhodesia on these matters. That is to be welcomed, and the support of the American Administration is particularly important in this regard. In the case of Namibia, progress is being made, although it is not being finalised as I should like to see it.

As the principal interest of the Soviet Union in Central Africa in recent years has been to finance, train and arm forces of terrorism, will the Prime Minister now categorically repudiate the unctuous and treacherous remarks made by the Foreign Secretary on his arrival in Moscow, about Britain's interests being identical to those of Russia?

Order. The use of the word "treacherous" is unparliamentary.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "treacherous". However, will the Prime Minister now repudiate—

Order. We have had the question.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Moscow.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 8th November.

As the Prime Minister is not actually going to Moscow, will he now take the opportunity to answer my hon. Friend's question whether he agrees with the Foreign Secretary's remarks in Moscow about the interests of the Soviet Union being the same as those of the United Kingdom?

The Soviet Union, as a member of the Security Council, did not cast a vote against the Anglo-American initiative. That was very helpful, and it was that to which my right hon. Friend's remarks were related. I should add that before the initiative was taken I corresponded with General Secretary Brezhnev on the issue, explained to him that it was a serious initiative, and asked that the Soviet Union should consider it in that light and not as a propaganda device.

Will my right hon. Friend protest to the Soviet authorities at the continued detention of Yuri Orlov, Anatoli Sharanski, and of all those others detained for their attachment to human rights, and at the treatment of Academician Sakharov, one of the greatest leaders in the world today?

The policy of Her Majesty's Government on that matter has been made very clear by the Foreign Secretary on numerous occasions. The policy remains the same as it was.

Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that there can be no successful conclusion to the Belgrade review of the Helsinki Agreements until those in Russia whose only offence was to monitor the agreements are released from detention?

I share the concern, which is widely felt throughout the House and the country, about certain cases. The Government have made a number of representations on the matter from time to time. At the Belgrade meeting the Western Powers as a whole made their position clear. It has not been met by an adequate response from the Soviet Union, and we shall continue to make representations in the way that we think is likely to be most effective. As I explained to the right hon. Lady on previous occasions—I think she accepts this—for the Government to make public denunciations is not always the best way to secure the release to which my hon. and learned Friend refers. Sometimes that can be helpful; at other times it is better to do it privately. But that is no reason why any private citizen in this country should restrain himself from making his position clear.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that a good definition of the word "treacherous" might be "an hon. Member who goes to Rhodesia and gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the Crown, Ian Smith", as did the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)?

Order. I hope that we can use Question Time constructively, rather than throwing accusations from one side to the other on this matter. I pulled up the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) and I hope that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) will remember what I said.

My point was entirely constructive—I assure you of that, Mr. Speaker. May I ask my right hon. Friend clearly to demonstrate-—hether it is to be in public or in private—that we on the Government side of the House do not discriminate in the cause of human liberty between those who abuse it in Rhodesia and those who subordinate it in Russia, and that consequently the proper posture for the Foreign Secretary of this country, the people of this country and the democratic Socialist movement of this country to adopt is to assert that cause of freedom anywhere in the world, in any country and against any tyrant?

My hon. Friend and many others of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches have made their position clear on many occasions in relation to the situation in the Soviet Union and in Chile, Rhodesia and South Africa. I am not aware of any distinction. I hope that Opposition Members will make their position equally clear in relation to Rhodesia, in respect of which they seem to be extremely tender.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to ask the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) to withdraw the accusations that he made against me in respect of the visit that I paid to Rhodesia.

If the hon. Gentleman had identified any hon. Member I would most certainly insist on the accusation being withdrawn. I understood that he was using his words in a general argument. But the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) can clear the matter up in a second, if he makes it clear that he is not accusing anyone in this House of treachery.

In one second. I was using a definition of the word "treacherous", and there appeared to be a practical example at hand.

Order. This is not a matter for argument across the Floor. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to accuse anyone in this House of being treacherous, and if he has done so I shall request him to withdraw his accusation.

In matters such as this, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you would acknowledge—[Interruption.]—the defenders of free speech—

The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to make himself clear, but I hope that he is not going to pursue an argument on the matter.

I think the best guide for my conduct on this subject, Mr. Speaker—though I would not dream of suggesting it to you—is that if caps are felt to fit, it is not an abuse; if they do not fit, the allegation is inaccurately made. If the cap does not fit, I withdraw the offer of the cap.

Order. I accept the hon. Gentleman's withdrawal.

Yesterday the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) raised with me a question et order about Members voting in both Lobbies during the same Division. I have been giving further thought to the matters that were raised both by the hon. Member for Pentlands and by the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham). The hon. Member for Paddington indicated to me that he had deliberately gone into both Lobbies to show that he was "positively abstaining."

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in agreement with your understanding of the traditions of the House that if a Member, having voted, realises that he has voted in a way which he did not intend, it is consistent with the traditions of the House and entirely desirable that he should then vote in the other Lobby rather than rising on a spurious point of order to explain that he did not intend to vote in the way that he did vote?

I was trying to deal with a new situation which has arisen. The old custom where an hon. Member realises that he has made a mistake is, of course, available to hon. Members.