asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to ensure that plans for a new bacon factory go ahead.

Early last year the Department of Commerce offered the Unipork group substantial assistance towards the construction and equipment costs of a new bacon factory which the group proposed to build in Cookstown to replace existing capacity. In addition, assistance was offered by the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund. I understand that Unipork has not yet taken a final decision to go ahead with the project, and my officials are meeting the company today to review the current position. The Government are well aware of the importance of the pig processing industry in the Province and the meat industry employment scheme is evidence of our determination to safeguard employment in this sector.

If Unipork proves to be viable in the near future and turns last year's loss into a profit, will the Government consider providing a little additional financial assistance to build this factory in order to safeguard jobs in the Cookstown area and to meet the requirements of EEC regulations on the processing of pork?

Since this is the first Question after what happened last night I give the hon. Member 10 out of 10 for his cheek. Asking for an increase in public expenditure in the first Question after the vote that we had in the House is something of a cheek. We shall be offering assistance to Northern Ireland firms in the same quantities as we have in the past, in spite of the efforts of some hon. Members.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the behaviour of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) and his colleagues ranks almost as hypocrisy of the worst kind? Continually to stand in the House and ask for increases in public expenditure in that Province, which is already doing much better than some other—

Order. The hon. Member must ask a question of the Minister on the things for which he is responsible. He is not responsible for the other side of the House.

Does the Minister not think that their behaviour as pet poodles of the Conservative Party which is attempting to wreck our economic policy—

Order. Question Time will be ruined if hon. Members do not ask questions on departmental responsibilities.

I am sure that those to whom my hon. Friend's question was directed will have taken note of it.

Is the Minister of State aware that both inside the Northern Ireland Vote and generally it is perfectly possible to increase one item of expenditure and to reduce another?

I am fully aware of that. I am also fully aware of the generous contribution that is made by the Treasury to Northern Ireland. Sometimes I and some of my colleagues, who are showing a little exasperation, wonder what we have to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were killed in road accidents and how many road accidents there were in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

The number of persons killed in road accidents in each of the last five years, 1973 to 1977, were 335, 316, 313, 300 and 355. The number of road accidents in each of those years was 5,000, 4,795, 4,882, 4,943 and 5,352 respectively.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures are disturbing? They appear to represent about double the average figure for the rest of the United Kingdom. What does my hon. Friend propose to do about this problem in a country where many other lives are lost unnecessarily?

My hon. Friend is right in his last point. It is true that more people have died on the roads than have died in any single year through violence, the troubles, and so forth. In the near future I shall be introducing an order relating to the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Within the Department we are examining proposals to increase penalties for drunken driving, or drinking and driving. These two measures should make an impact on the deplorable level of fatalities and accidents on the roads in Northern Ireland.

Does the Minister agree with the head of traffic control in the RUC that accident rates are at their present high level because of excessive drinking and driving? Is the Minister taking immedate steps to do something about the large number of people who are drinking in all areas, both in licensed clubs and in licensed premises?

The hon. Gentleman is right. Drinking asociated with driving is the major factor in the loss of life through road accidents. An urgent review is currently taking place in my Department and we hope to bring forward proposals in the autumn.

In view of the appalling carnage on the roads of Northern Ireland and the representations that have been made to my hon. Friend by those in authority in the hospitals, such as the consultant surgeons, does he agree that it is grossly irresponsible for Northern Ireland Opposition Members to attempt to stop the compulsory wearing of seat belts in the Province? Does my hon. Friend not agree that this is necessary in Northern Ireland?

My hon. Friend is right on the first point. Virtually all responsible and professional opinion in North- ern Ireland favours the compulsory wearing of seat belts. On my hon. Friend's last point, I have not given up hope that the vast majority of Unionist Members—indeed, all Northern Ireland Members of Parliament—will vote in support of the proposition when it comes before the House.

Does the Minister agree that there is little point in stiffening the legislation on drunken driving if it cannot be enforced? What is being done to ensure more rigorous enforcement of the existing law?

There are difficulties in Northern Ireland in that respect. I should be foolish to deny it. However, the RUC has assured me in my consultations with it that it can go about its job of detecting drinking and driving in a normal way. I do not think that the RUC lacks the ability to co-operate with the Government in the implementation of the law.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state the average number of electors in the 12 Northern Ireland constituencies on the latest register of electors.

On the 1978 register of electors the average is 86,142.

As that compares with an average of 64,088 for Great Britain, how much longer will Northern Ireland be deprived of proper political representation? When will the findings of the Speaker's Conference on Northern Ireland be implemented by the introduction of a Bill to put the matter right?

We will not be introducing immediate legislation. That was made known to the House by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Implementation depends to some extent on the outcome of the Boundary Commission's deliberations. The Commission will have to listen to opinion in Northern Ireland before coming to a conclusion and making recommendations.

Is the Minister aware that his reply is disappointing? Notwithstanding what the Leader of the House said, is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 19th April when the Prime Minister announced Mr. Speaker's recommendations he told my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) that he would consider publishing the Bill this Session? Will the Government give further consideration to that possibility in order to avoid delay and in view of the near unanimous nature of the findings of the Speaker's Conference?

Too much attention is being paid to that aspect of the issue. Even if a Bill were published, there would be no chance of any recommendations being implemented for the next General Election. That would have to take place afterwards, and so the timing is not as critical as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Since a promise was made that the Boundary Commission could start preliminary work before the Bill was published or debated, will the Minister say whether the preliminary work has begun?

That is a matter for the Boundary Commission, but the original suggestion that it could start preliminary work stands, and it is probably looking at the matter now.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he remains satisfied with the rate of improvement in public sector housing in Belfast.

While the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is making encouraging progress in tackling the housing problems in Belfast, the scale of the work required is immense and every effort is being made to ensure more rapid progress.

Is it not the case that there are more houses available than are needed in Northern Ireland? Is any progress being made in bringing people back to those areas of Belfast which have been torn by sectarian strife?

My hon. Friend is right. There is a crude housing surplus in Northern Ireland, particularly in Belfast where the surplus is very real and where houses are available for people who need them. The trouble is that those homes happen to be in the wrong places. In private housing we have been able, through the use of public funds and building society funds, to make mortgages available to people who want to buy houses in the inner cities. I am pleased to report that more and more people are returning to the inner city and are buying properties which have lain derelict for some years.

How can Housing Executive tenants throughout Northern Ireland be expected to tolerate a situation in which repairs are not carried out to their homes when demanded, or are badly carried out? Is the Minister aware that this happens even though tenants are being asked for further increases in rent, and yet food and heating cost more in Northern Ireland and wages are generally lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and there is grave hardship in many cases? Will the Government deal with that aspect?

That is the hon. Gentleman's usual jumbled question. The plain fact is that rents are significantly lower in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. I should be anxious to receive a letter from the hon. Gentleman urging the Government not to go ahead with an increase in rents in Northern Ireland.

Does the Minister agree that many of the working class in Belfast, especially in North Belfast, the Lower Oldpark RD3 and North of the Shankill Road have been betrayed by his Department and the Housing Executive which promised that they would provide housing in that area? Is he aware that over the past few years they have received no instructions to rehouse people? Is he further aware that people there are now living in deplorable conditions? Many have been forced to leave the area and move to the outskirts of Belfast and other places. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will look at this matter and help those who are living in the Lower Oldpark and other parts of North Belfast to be rehoused in the area in which they have lived for many years?

The hon. Gentleman will be talking to me later today on this matter, but I ought to put the record straight now. We are to build 100 new houses in that area. It is untrue to say that we have reneged on any promise in that matter.

How much public subsidy is being devoted by the Government to housing in Northern Ireland? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the industry spokesman for the Conservatives, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), with whom so many Opposition Northern Ireland Members voted last night, is on record as saying that all grants and subsidies do great harm?

That is one of the strange facts of life, among many others, with which we have to live in Northern Ireland. Housing in Northern Ireland is subsidised to a far greater extent than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. But that is something that the Government and I in particular, as the Minister responsible, are prepared to live with because housing conditions there are so much worse than in any other part of the United Kingdom. The subsidy we have to maintain in Northern Ireland is consequently that much greater.

Will the Minister encourage an increase in staff at district office level in the Housing Executive, because it is at that point that the work is certainly expedited? Will he try to encourage the return of the maintenance section to district office level because of the great delays and ineptitude of the centralised maintenance section?

As I have said, we are dissatisfied at every level with the maintenance effort in the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland. I am bound to point out, however, that once again the hon. Member is calling for public expenditure increases. He and his hon. Friends call for public expenditure increases in Northern Ireland and public expenditure cuts in Great Britain.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will order an inquiry into the death of Brian Maguire, found hanged in his cell on Wednesday 10th May at Castlereagh Police Station; and if he will make a statement.

A senior police officer from outside the RUC has carried out a full investigation, and in accordance with normal practice his report is being forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I understand that the coroner's inquest will take place in public on 26th June. The House will thus understand that it would not be proper for me to say anything further at this stage.

In view of what I feel is a disappointing reply, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he will consider a public inquiry into the situation in Castlereagh? I ask for that for a number of reasons. The first is the Amnesty report, which calls for a public inquiry. Amnesty is a reputable body. The second is that Britain has previously been condemned for brutal and harsh treatment of prisoners. The third is that doctors and lawyers are all critical of what is going on in Castlereagh, and the lawyers, in particular, are critical of the emergency powers legislation, feeling from the evidence that they have that this reduces the safeguards against certain police operations.

Oh.

Order. I was kind to the hon. Lady in letting her go on for so long. But she shall have her "Finally".

Finally, will the Secretary of State agree to an all-party deputation of Members of Parliament going across to Northern Ireland to look at the prisons there—not just to meet the prisoners but to look at the prisons and the conditions there?

On the latter point, Members of Parliament are always going to Northern Ireland, whether it is Northern Ireland Labour Party defence groups, Northern Ireland Labour Party groups, or similar groups from the Opposition side of the House, and the prisons have been visited.

Is the right hon. Member aware—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps the hon. Lady would not mind waiting for a moment, otherwise she will stop anyone else asking a supplementary question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friends and I support his determination to stick to the proper procedures laid down by law, which apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, for investigating alleged breaches of discipline and alleged criminal offences, and that in this case, as in others, we entirely support his restriction of inquiries into matters of practice and procedure which are appropriate for that treatment?

Any death in police custody is a serious matter and is treated as such by any police force, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary. But that is not to say that its mere occurrence is evidence of impropriety. In England and Wales, for example, there were 169 deaths in police custody between January 1970 and the middle of 1977. In each of these cases, where appropriate, a police investigation was carried out and a public inquest subsequently held. In 27 of these cases the coroner's verdict was suicide. We are carrying out the agreed procedures in Northern Ireland precisely as they are carried out in England and Wales.

Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that there will be a very bitter taste in the mouths of the minority community as a result of the decision to hold only internal police inquiries instead of having a full public inquiry? Will he accept that his statement this afternoon that he will not allow a full party of Members of Parliament to go to Northern Ireland will convey the impression to the minority community that concealment is going on? Will my right hon. Friend further accept from me that every progressive development that emanates from these Labour Benches is always howled at by Opposition Members, who seem to have a lot to conceal in their conduct in Northern Ireland?

I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but there is a specific Question on the Order Paper regarding Castlereagh, and that will be answered next.

Does the hon. Lady wish to raise a point of order?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The point of order that I wanted to raise was that in view of the unsatisfactory reply by the Secretary of State, I reserve the right to pursue the question of an all-party delegation of Members of Parliament to go over to Northern Ireland to see the prisoners and the conditions there.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the present conditions at the Castlereagh interrogation centre.

The accommodation and other facilities for persons detained at RUC Castlereagh compare favourably with those at police stations elsewhere. As for the operational function of the centre, as was announced on 8th June, the Government, at the suggestion of the Chief Constable, are setting up an independent inquiry to consider present police practice and procedures relating to the interrogation of persons suspected of scheduled offences, whether at Castlereagh or at any other locations in Northern Ireland.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Amnesty report appears to substantiate many of the misgivings expressed in the Press and on television and in this House about some of the interrogation procedures at Castlereagh? Does he further accept that we are unlikely to beat the terrorists unless we can do so without double standards and without dirty hands, and that where there are reports of this kind, as has been true in this House for many years—certainly since the time of Hola Camp and beyond—it is right for the House of Commons to question what has gone on?

I hope that my hon. Friend does not accuse me of double standards. Secondly, it will be a judicial inquiry. Thirdly, the report will be published.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition will give their full support to his proposal for an independent private inquiry in this case? Will it be chaired by a judge? I suggest that it should be. When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to announce the details of the inquiry?

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I am certainly looking for a key judicial figure to head the inquiry, but I also want a senior person who has knowledge of police practices, allied with someone with medical knowledge, to back it up.

In view of the solemn and binding undertaking given by the British Labour Government to the European Court of Human Rights that ill-treatment and maltreatment would no longer be carried out in interrogation centres in Northern Ireland, is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole credibility of the Government and, indeed, of the Labour and trade union movement is at stake on this issue? Is he aware that the 78 people mentioned by Amnesty International—a respectable and respected organisation—have tried to take civil action in the courts against the detectives who beat them up in Castlereagh, and that the Government and the authorities in Northern Ireland have refused to give the names of those involved? Will he also take into account the fact that this House should have an opportunity to debate the Amnesty International report, when, by a series of questions and answers, we may get to the truth of the matter?

As my hon. Friend knows, I have asked Amnesty International to provide the evidence that it has of the 78 cases—witnesses or medical evidence—to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

That is no good.

If it is prepared to do that, the Director of Public Prosecutions can make his inquiries into those cases and can present his findings to the committee of inquiry so that the committee can take them on board. That is a proposition that I hope Amnesty International will take up.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Amnesty International report is anonymous? It mentions no names and gives no evidence whatsoever about the lawyers, doctors and other people who make the accusations. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House today that when the judicial inquiry is set up, Amnesty International can be brought to it and made to put in the open the accusations that have been made? No one knows who are the people concerned or who has given the evidence that has been supplied in their cases.

Name the police as well.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is correct. The allegations are unsubstantiated allegations against unnamed police officers, and they are all made anonymously.

Name the police.

It happens to be a fact that Amnesty International itself has kept the allegations anonymous. I am now asking whether it is prepared to reveal its information, to ask its witnesses and complainants to break the confidentiality rule but to give the information to the DPP, by whom the confidentiality would be maintained. Flowing from the DPP's examination, Amnesty International can go to the committee of inquiry, and we can ascertain the truth of the complaints.

rose—

I propose to call one more hon. Member from each side of the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Labour Benches who are totally opposed to terrorism in Northern Ireland, or anywhere else, are nevertheless very perturbed by the Amnesty International report, primarily because we have accepted the Amnesty International reports in relation to Chile, Argentina, the Soviet Union and many other countries? Therefore, we cannot feel that Amnesty International has no case.

But my hon. Friend would certainly run into the sand of not being able to pursue the truth if the inquiry were in public. First, there would be a whole series of propaganda exercises, in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland. Secondly, we should have to consider granting immunity to everyone who appeared before a public inquiry. How could we proceed thereafter?

As Amnesty International's charges have had wide publicity, and as the judicial inquiry will necessarily take a considerable time to make its report, what opportunity will the RUC have to answer in public the grave charges that have been made against it?

I do not think that there is any doubt that the RUC will make official representations to the inquiry, as indeed will the Police Authority. There will be many opportunities during the course of the inquiry for the police to make their views known.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has studied the report on Availability of Manpower and "The Double", prepared for the Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors (Northern Ireland) by a firm of management consultants; and what investigations he proposes to undertake as a result.

I confirm that I have received a copy of this report. The report does not name individuals allegedly abusing the social security system, and cannot therefore lead to investigations of individual cases. Many of the difficulties highlighted in the report can be met only by modifying certain employment practices within the construction industry, and the Departments of Manpower Services and Health and Social Security (Northern Ireland) are working closely with the Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors to find solutions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is satisfactory to know that the serious work that went into the report is being utilised by the Government? Is he satisfied that the investigatory staff in the Department is adequate to deal with practices which, however widespread they may be, are certainly extremely damaging so far as they exist?

The matter has been on-going. It was a private investigation by the construction industry, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that other inquiries and other work have been going on simultaneously. We have a special branch of the DHSS in Northern Ireland which has 25 investigatory officers. Last year 416 people were convicted in Northern Ireland for working and claiming benefit. Ninety-one-21 per cent.—were in the building trade. The figures were higher than those for the previous year. In 1977, 26 employers were convicted on account of false state- ments to sustain claims to benefit. Eight of them were building trade employers. Thirty-one claimants and four employers were jailed for social security frauds. Forty-two claimants and three employers received suspended prison sentences, and 396 claimants and 19 employers were also fined.

Can my right hon. Friend give us an indication of the precise nature of the report? I am being quite honest about this. I do not know the nature of the report. Is it in relation to the "lump"? If it is, does that mean that the United Kingdom's laws on this matter are being contravened? If so, what is the Opposition's attitude? They have constantly opposed Labour efforts to control the "lump" and all the pernicious things that go with it.

The Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors in Northern Ireland was perturbed by the high number of people going on the unemployment register who were also registering as contractors or building trade employers, so it initiated its own investigation. I think that it was very surprised by the outcome, which laid a considerable part of the blame at the construction industry's door.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

I agreed with Mr. O'Kennedy when we met on 5th May that we would maintain contact on matters of short- and long-term interest and would meet again as necessary. No dates for further meetings have yet been arranged.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Irish Foreign Minister will he raise again with him the failure of the Government of the Republic to sign and ratify the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism? Will he emphasise, in the friendliest possible spirit, the great importance attached to this matter in this country as an index of the genuine and total commitment of the Government of the Republic to the fight against terrorism?

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the latter point. He knows that the Government of the Republic have reiterated quite strongly that they have a 100 per cent. political commitment to the fight against terrorism. As for the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, the Government of the Republic know full well the views of Her Majesty's Government—indeed, the views of many hon. Members in this House. They were aware of what was said during the passage through this House of the antiterrorist legislation. I do not think that any reiteration is needed.

Does not the common interest of the Republic and the United Kingdom require that we should continue with our representations to the Government of the Republic to the effect that a redefinition of a political offence for extradition purposes is overdue and also that the signature of the Republic to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism is likewise long overdue?

I agree with the latter point made by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the Government of the Republic are aware of the point, too. We must recognise, not just with the Irish Republic but with every member of the Council of Europe which has decided to go ahead and sign this convention, that it has to be signed—as it was signed by Her Majesty's Government—without reservations.

While I appreciate the efforts of the Irish police against what the Taoiseach acknowledges to be a common enemy, may I ask that when a Northern Ireland or Foreign Office Minister next sees Mr. O'Kennedy he will ask him why and when he reversed his opinion of February 1977, based on the opinion of constitutional lawyers, that there was no objection, on the basis of the Irish constitution, to Dublin signing the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism?

When next I meet Mr. O'Kennedy I will ask him that. I cannot go into the constitutional difficulties, niceties and the sophistications of that constitution today.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the community facilities which are planned for the Ravenhill and Woodstock Roads; and what is the total amount of expenditure for these projects.

Primary responsibility for the provision of community facilities rests with Belfast City Council and the area boards, but I understand that the facilities currently planned for the Raven-hill and Woodstock Roads area are a workshop for the handicapped, Ravenhill Road; a community recreation centre, Ormeau Park; a youth club and play centre, Clara Street; a youth centre, Ballynafeigh and a nursery school, Euston Road.

While I am grateful for the detail of that reply, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that three of the projects mentioned are not related to the roads mentioned in the Question? Does he appreciate that the public inquiry report for this area is long overdue? Can he confirm that the building of a community centre is recommended in that report? What will be the date of publication of that report for redevelopment area No. 31?

The hon. Member is right. The public inquiry has been held and we are currently sifting the views that were made known. People were calling for a variety of projects. We have not yet decided what the final report should contain, what we should recommend and when the report should be made.

Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues explain to the Northern Ireland people very clearly that the logical consequence of their being represented by hon. Members who demand less and less public expenditure in total yet at the same time continue to put forward rapacious demands for increased expenditure in their own area must be that their position and requests will be treated with considerable disfavour?

My hon. Friend is quite right. As I pointed out earlier, it is one of the bitter ironies of life for the Government in Northern Ireland that Unionist Members representing Northern Ireland call for public expenditure increases there and for public expenditure cuts in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us about the site that was earmarked for a community centre on the left-hand side of the Woodstock Road going out from the centre of the city? Can he say why that site has not been developed as a community centre, irrespective of what political flag the people in that area fly?

The hon. Member's knowledge of the geography of Belfast is much greater than mine. I shall look into the point that he made. As I told the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) earlier, a public inquiry has been held and all of the representations made at that inquiry are currently being considered.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the Trades Union Congress.

I met representatives of the TUC on 28th February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC will he raise with it the question of industrial democracy? Will he draw to its attention the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming the proposals that my right hon. Friend put forward on 23rd May? Will he draw to the attention of the TUC the contrast between that bit of no doubt softened "Fairy Snow" image and the image portrayed by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), who on Tuesday said that the Conservatives would emasculate the Bullock proposals and oppose any legislation?

There will be discussions taking place between the TUC and appropriate Ministers on the White Paper that the Government have issued. I regret that the Opposition seem to be taking a more negative attitude now than they did when the White Paper was first published, especially as I have noticed that some independent observers have gone on record since the publication of the White Paper saying that they thought that it formed a useful basis. We think that voluntary arrangements should be made, as far as possible, with a legislative fall-back.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the TUC will be concerned at the threatened closure of the ICI plant on Teesside, with the possible loss of 8,000 jobs—this arising because the Company is not allowed to pay the kind of wages that would attract and keep skilled workers? Will the Prime Minister accept that his policy of depressed wages for skilled workers and high tax for all is leading directly to unemployment?

No, Sir, I will not accept anything of the sort. That is simply not true. The situation is that there has been a large increase in training for skilled men. I am glad to say that that has more than doubled since the right hon. Lady had any responsibility in the last Conservative Administration. We clearly need more training than we have. As to wage differentials, perhaps one day the right hon. Lady will recognise that there must be some reconciliation between overcoming inflation and a measure of holding back on wages. I do not know whether she accepts that. Perhaps she would like to make it clear.

Will the Prime Minister now address his mind to the question? Eight thousand jobs may be lost because the company cannot pay enough to keep skilled workers and to attract more, yet there are training places vacant because the pay is not high enough to encourage people to take up these jobs. In the face of this loss, will the Prime Minister say whether the company can pay enough to keep skilled workers and attract more, or would the company be black listed if it did so?

I cannot reply to a question on an individual company. If the right hon. Lady wants a particular answer she should table a Question to the appropriate Minister. On the general question, I note that she is now departing from any proposals for having reasonable restraint on pay. In that case, I warn her that there will be a serious return to inflation. That is something that we have to balance. It is the responsibility of the Government—but, of course, not of the right hon. Lady—to try to get a proper balance between differentials and a restraint on pay. I sometimes wish that she would acknowledge that and recognise that this is a problem if inflation is to be kept down.

Is the Prime Minister saying that he would rather have these workers unemployed than allow a flourishing, good company to make its own bargain with its own unions freely and without Government restraint?

No, of course I would not say anything of the sort, and the right hon. Lady understands that. What she will not acknowledge is that there is a relationship between the amount of wages paid and the level of inflation. It is the job of the Government to get this right, and we are getting it right. The right hon. Lady will no doubt pursue this point. We shall try in the next pay year to ensure that differentials have a rather better show than they have had this year. This year has been better than last year in that respect. But, overall, I should like to hear the right hon. Lady say one day that she regards the overcoming of inflation as the No. 1 priority of this country.

asked the Prime Minister what are his official engagements for 15th June.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today President Ceausescu of Romania and I will be signing a joint statement at the end of our official talks. This evening I shall be the guest of the President at a dinner in honour of Her Majesty the Queen.

Although he has a busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to comment on last night's vote, when the separatist extremists in the Scottish National Party combined with the Unionist extremists in the Tory Party to try to defeat the Government? That defeat could have wrecked the Scottish Assembly. In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's description of the Shadow Chancellor as a dead sheep, does not this mean that the SNP is a crowd of political maggots living off the carcase of the Tory Party?

I am afraid that my rhetorical skills do not vie with either those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or those of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), but, looking ahead, what we can say is that now, in the light of last night's vote, there is a very good prospect that the devolution Bills will reach the statute book, and that therefore the Scottish people, as well as the Welsh people, will be able to declare themselves, through a referendum, on the subject of the Assembly. When they vote, they will know that there are no thanks due to the Scottish National Party.

Referring to last night's debate, will the right hon. Gentleman take a few moments off in order to congratulate his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his desperate efforts to restore confidence in the Government, and congratulate him even further on the fact that he has attempted to rig the gilt-edged market this morning by relaxing £640 million of special deposits?

This decision to extend the facilities in the market was taken not by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer but by the Bank of England, and is a technical adjustment made necessary by the great success in selling gilt-edged since my right hon. Friend announced the increase in minimum lending rate and other factors last week, including the corset.

In view of the remarks made by the right hon. Lady, will my right hon. Friend suggest that she should consult some of the Teesside people affected by the troubles to which she referred? If she does so, she will find that there is no glib answer to this very difficult problem. Is my right hon. Friend aware that for every six instrument artificers trained by ICI at that plant, only one has been retained, and that these men have been going to Saudi Arabia, Norway and various other countries, where they are obtaining salaries of between £10,000 and £20,000, which could not be matched under any pay policy?

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), in whose constituency I believe the factory is situated—or at any rate a number of his constituents work in it—is very well informed about these matters. I do not know why he should assume, however, that the right hon. Lady wants to find an answer to the problem. She just wants to find a way of having a dig at the Government.