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

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

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he remains satisfied with the state of security in Northern Ireland, in the light of the recent murder of Sir Norman Stronge and his son.

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

I have to report that since I last answered questions nine people have died as a result of terrorist violence. They include Sir Norman Stronge, his son James, who was a member of the RUC Reserve, and six other members of the security forces. Attacks on commercial and business premises also occurred, and, although much damage was done, a number of attacks were foiled by the bravery and skill of the ammunition technical officers.

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

Is there evidence since the Dublin summit and the murders that my right hon. Friend has mentioned that more is really being done by the Republic to secure its side of the frontier from terrorist activities and to speed the surrender to justice of the terrorists there harboured?

There is a question later on the Order Paper on this issue. Both the Chief Constable and the GOC advise me that the co-operation that they are receiving in cross-border security activities from the Republic is increasing all the time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that any measures designed to eliminate killer gangs in the greater Belfast area will not result in any weakening of the defence of the frontier? Will he assure the House that everything possible will be done to increase security in both spheres?

We are conscious of the need to maintain a high level of security force presence in border areas. Both the Chief Constable and the GOC have that in mind. Without going into details, which I know the hon. Gentleman would not wish me to do, that is being done.

As the RUC was successful in ramming one of the escape vehicles after the murders of Sir Norman Stronge and his son, will the Secretary of State say how many rounds of ammunition were fired by the RUC and how many were fired by the terrorists? Will he inform us if the second police car was engaged in the attack as well? This is an important aspect of that monstrous and savage crime. Will the Secretary of State please make a statement about it?

Without notice, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the details for which he asks, but I shall furnish him with them later, in whatever form he finds most appropriate.

Will the Secretary of State confirm or deny that the army patrol, which was to observe Tynan Abbey on the night of that atrocious murder of Sir Norman Stronge and his son James, was being wined and dined at a well-known Republican house in that area? Will he also deny or confirm that the helicopter which came to the assistance of the RUC ran out of fuel and had to return to base? Will he tell us what action has been taken against the officer who was responsible for the patrol not being in position on the night of that terrible incident?

I never give details in the House of the security force operations, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, I cannot understand why it is in the interests of anyone to make such charges.

Cover-up.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Antrim North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is a liar.

So he is.

Order. Did the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) make that statement?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I made that statement because it is true.

So it is.

Order. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) knows that he must withdraw that remark at once.

I have no intention of withdrawing the truth. Evidently, the Secretary of State prefers—

Order. I name Rev. Ian Paisley for gross discourtesy to the Chair. I call upon a Minister to move the appropriate motion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is telling the truth.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

There can be no points of order at this stage.

I beg to move,

"That Rev. Ian Paisley be suspended fron the service of the House."

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Under Standing Order No. 8, I believe that you have the power to extend Question Time. This incident was unlooked for by the House. Because of the argument, hon. Members could be deprived of the opportunity to ask questions. Therefore, I suggest to you Mr. Speaker, that you add the time that has been taken from questions to the end of Question Time in order to help the House.

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. That power relates to private notice questions rather than to Question Time. All the precedents are that when such an incident happens, it comes out of Question Time. We shall now continue with questions.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the identity of most of the men involved in the killing of some of my constituents, including Sir Norman and James Stronge, is known, not only to the security forces on both sides of the border, but to Ministers on both sides of the border? Is it not deplorable that all my constituents can do is wait until someone else is killed?

I do not know the names of any of the criminals. If I did, I would inform the security forces. I have no doubt that there are strong suspicions, and I hope very much that evidence will be produced so that the guilty people can be convicted.

In view of the success of the operation by the SAS against the Iranian Embassy terrorists in London last year, and the findings of the court that the members of the SAS were not guilty of murder in the circumstances of the siege when they shot the gunmen, will the right hon. Gentleman deploy enough units of the SAS in Northern Ireland to deal effectively and immediately with the terrorists, particularly along the border of West Belfast and Crossmaglen?

As I have said, the Chief Constable and the GOC are satisfied that they have sufficient resources on the ground. I emphasise that all members of the Security Forces are subject to the law, like everyone else.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many of us believe that cross-border co-operation is getting better all the time? However, will he nevertheless keep that matter at the top of the agenda in any discussions with Dublin, because it is important that we have as much co-operation as possible with the South over security?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that co-operation is improving all the time. It is a matter that we keep constantly before us in our discussions with the authorities south of the border.

Does the Secretary of State accept that there are two malign forces in Northern Ireland—one led by the IRA and the other by paramilitary leaders, who are in some cases elected by the Unionist Loyalists—and that they feed off each other? Is he aware that members of the IRA murder policemen, UDR men and innocent civilians and that that leads to a reaction from the men who lead illegal armies up hills in County Antrim and who refuse to recognise the authority of this House? Why does the Secretary of State find it so difficult to ban the activities of the Ulster Defence Association, when that association is clearly identified with some of the most atrocious murders committed in Northern Ireland and in particular the attempted murder of Bernadette Devlin? Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that the sheer weight of numbers in the UDA will not prevent him from bringing into action all the forces of law and order to defeat the UDA, the IRA and any other paramilitary organisation that there may be in Northern Ireland?

Without agreeing with every detail of what the hon. Gentleman says, I state at once that the size of an organisation has nothing to do with whether it is proscribed. The test of proscription is whether an organisation is actively encouraging, supporting or engaged in terrorist activities. Any organisation that is is liable to be proscribed. The most important thing is to prevent people from committing crimes, and, if they do commit them, whoever they are and wherever they come from, to bring them swiftly to justice. That is what the main thrust of our efforts is directed towards.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people aged under 21 years in Northern Ireland are unemployed; and what percentage of the work force this represents.

The monthly unemployment statistics do not show separately people aged under 21. The figure for January 1981 for unemployed persons under 20 was 20,754. This represents 3·6 per cent. of all employees in Northern Ireland.

Is the Minister aware that the significance of his reply is that, despite all the problems in Northern Ireland, there is still no hope of meaningful employment for thousands of young men and women? Is he not aware that Northern Ireland cries out for a stable industrial base that offers employment and training and that it wants to get away from the utter stupidity of paying millions of pounds to keep people in unemployment? When will that message be understood by the Government?

I agree that the need is for a stable industrial base. That is what our policies are designed to procure. In the meantime we are taking steps to give employment to young people. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have increased the number of places on the youth opportunities programme by about 40 per cent. since the previous Administration were in power.

What steps does the Minister intend to take to rejuvenate the construction industry in Northern Ireland? How many jobs have been lost in that industry since the moratorium was applied in July 1980?

That question arises under the hon. Gentleman's name later. I shall answer it then.

Does the Minister agree that the proposed expansion of the youth opportunities programme from 7,000 to 10,000 places is inadequate to deal with the appalling unemployment that exists for young people in the Province? Will he set up many more community workshops to help young unemployed people to learn industrial skills and arrange to increase the number of places at Govenment training centres?

With the resources available, the increase of 3,000 places on the youth opportunities programme is sufficient at this time, especially bearing in mind the resources that we are putting behind industrial development.

Is the Minister aware that in addition to 10 per cent. of the unemployed being school leavers, 30 per cent. are under 21? Does he not recognise that by diminishing the training boards and Enterprise Ulster he is throwing many more young people on to the streets, which must in turn worsen the security situation?

Enterprise Ulster deals more with the long-term adult unemployed, although a few young people are given jobs by the scheme. We are continuing strongly with the Government's training programme at Government training centres and with employers. The schemes are fully supported and are doing valuable work.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the officers of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trades Unions.

I have no immediate plans for a formal meeting.

When the Secretary of State next meets the officers of the Northern Ireland Committee will he explain the Government's statement last July that, although unemployment in Northern Ireland was grim, there was a silver lining? Is he aware that since then the problem has reached crisis proportions and is undermining all the attempts of those who are trying to reconcile the two communities? Will he act on the alternatives being proffered by the Northern Ireland Committee?

I shall listen to anything that is said to me, but whether I act upon it depends on what it is.

Is the Secretary of State aware that when I last met NICICTU three weeks ago it was very depressed by the situation in Northern Ireland and that one reason was that it saw no one fighting its corner for jobs in Northern Ireland? What hope will the Minister give on Monday to the group of trade unionists coming from Northern Ireland?

My hon. Friend met the whole Committee last week and there was a useful exchange of views. I am happy to say that when I talk to the Committee I do not find quite the amount of pessimism that I detect in the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why, in view of the statement he made in August 1980 that the Government's obligation to consider applications for further financial assistance for the de Lorean Company had been discharged, he decided to consider a further application from that company.

I considered a further application for a Government guarantee in respect of commercial loans to help the company resolve a short-term cash problem and take the DMG 12 car through tho market launch. I have now agreed in principle to the provision of a time-limited guarantee for commercial loans of up to £10 million, subject to certain acknowledgements which record the company's acceptance that neither the Northern Ireland Development Agency nor the Department of Commerce has any financial obligations towards the company and which confirm that royalties remain payable as agreed.

Does not my hon. Friend realise that those undertakings were given to the House six months ago? Is there not a danger that my right hon. Friend, in his dealings with Mr. De Lorean, will come to resemble the young lady from Riga who went for a ride on a tiger? Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. De Lorean apparently has a T-shirt on which is emblazoned the slogan "I am a con man"? Would he consider sending him a character reference? Can he seriously give the House the assurance that it needs that we shall have an opportunity to debate the matter and vote on it before any further money is given to that con man?

My hon. Friend does not help his cause. It is a serious matter whether more money is put behind that project. In fact, no more money is being provided but purely a Government guarantee behind commercial loans to help the company to launch a car that it believes has good market prospects. The obligations were removed in the agreements last summer but, because of certain press statements about the beliefs of one or two parties to the arrangement, I felt it necessary to come to a firm written understanding with Mr. de Lorean that no such obligations now exist.

Is the Minister aware that a fraction of the sums that have been invested or, as the case may be, sunk in de Lorean would be sufficient to produce an improvement in links, especially the transport links, between the Province and the mainland, with the result that far more employment than can be envisaged from de Lorean would be created and maintained?

The original decision to support that project was taken by the previous Labour Administration. Last year, the Government were faced with an approach for further funds. I have been approached again. I have explained to the House what our practice has been in the circumstances. I must make it clear that we have told the company that the Government have made a sufficient provision of public funds to support the DMG12 car project, and that it must look elsewhere for further funding. The company accepts that.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that, if Mr. de Lorean requires further money for his cash flow problems and approaches the Government for a further guarantee, no such guarantee will be given unless the contract, which is so favourable to Mr. de Lorean, is renegotiated?

I made it clear in my response to the previous supplementary question that no more selective assistance would be given to the DMG12 car project. The company is well aware of that.

Will the Minister confirm that the jobs involved in that company are highly expensive, no matter how welcome they are, at £77 million? Will he confirm also that de Lorean, contrary to statements by members of the Minister's Department of Commerce, has given the fullest information? Will he confirm that audited accounts are now available, contrary to the accounts of the Northern Ireland Development Agency issued yesterday? Will he ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General has full right of access to the accounts and circumstances of that firm?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the jobs have been expensive. But again, I must stress that the decision that I have taken has not been to provide more money, but to ensure that the car comes to market launch. If we had not taken that decision, there would have been serious unemployment consequences in Northern Ireland. The House must recognise that fact. I am satisfied with the information that my Department received in coming to the decision.

In his previous incarnation, my hon. Friend will remember that not only did the Department of Industry not take steps to save MG, but it almost deliberately drove it into extinction. Is he aware that some of us who watched that with dismay now watch the saga with de Lorean with even more dismay? Will he allow me, and perhaps one or two of my knowledgeable constituents, to visit de Lorean so that we can look at the project and determine whether my constituents are receiving good value for their taxes?

My hon. Friend knows that his interpretation of the Government's attitude towards MG is different from that of Ministers. I am sure that if my hon. Friend writes to de Lorean, that company would welcome his visit to the factory at an appropriate time.

The Minister must be aware that there is more to this issue than simply the de Lorean project. It has always been recognised that the project would have spin-off effects both in Northern Ireland and in the remainder of Britain. Jobs both in Northern Ireland and in Britain are affected by the spin-off from that project. For example, the steel industry in Scunthorpe will provide the steel for the project. About 80 per cent. of the company's requirements come from the United Kingdom. We have to consider the balance sheet of security as well as politics. The car is coming on stream. While I was in America last week, there was a great deal of publicity for the car, which is eagerly awaited. We must remember that we are talking about employment in Northern Ireland. We should give the car a fair wind and all the help that we can—

Order. Even a Front Bench spokesman must ask a question, rather than have an argument.

The right hon. Memberfor Mansfield (Mr. Concannon, takes the right attitude towards that car.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of my hon. Friend's reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he envisages making any early progress in evolving new political institutions in the Province; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the under Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he plans any administrative changes in the governing of the Province.

The Government continue to seek a transfer of significant powers to locally elected representatives on a basis acceptable to both sides of the community. However, in the present absence of agreement among the Northern Ireland political parties on how those powers should be exercised, I am considering how to improve the existing administrative arrangements for the government of the Province.

Following the unsuccessful White Paper initiative, is my right hon. Friend still trying to break the log jam of resentment and suspicion about this matter and to move to a better structure of government in Northern Ireland? Or has he given up initiatives in despair and is settling down to a long period of indefinite direct rule?

No, Sir. The Government have not given up in despair. I propose to remain in close touch with party leaders in Northern Ireland. A long-term answer can come only if the parties in Northern Ireland reach agreement on how the country should be governed and how power could be exercised by locally elected people.

Can my right hon. Friend see any overriding reason why the current proportion of elected representatives on area boards should not be expanded from their current one-third of the boards?

That matter, and a variety of other matters connected with the governing of the Province are currently engaging my attention.

Does the Secretary of State realise that, unless he solves the problems related to security, the prospect of changing events in the Province are very much diminished. Unless he treats with an equal hand not only the IRA but other terrorist organisations, he will find that faith in his proposals will diminish considerably.

Of course, the security position bears very much upon the matter. That is why I am glad to note that for a number of years the level of violence has been steadily diminishing—which is what everybody wants. It is part of the Government's business to be as even-handed as possible.

Will the Secretary of State be totally honest with the House and say that the search for new political institutions in Northern Ireland has come to a full stop, pending the outcome of the talks now taking place between this Government and the Government of the Republic? Will he confirm that there is no possibility of creating new political institutions in advance of the outcome of those talks? Will he take it from me, in all sincerity, that his Government, and especially the Prime Minister, need to create a great deal more confidence in Northern Ireland that nothing underhand is taking place in the talks? Does he appreciate that the Opposition should be made fully aware of what is happening on political progress in Northern Ireland? Nothing underhand must be done that will support the attitude expressed by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).

I would not say that the search for a way forward in improving the government of the Province has come to a full stop. A comma might be more appropriate. I sincerely hope that discussions between this Government and the Government of the Republic will continue on a wide variety of matters for a long time. I hope those discussions will not come to an end, but it would be wrong to say that we should not seek a way forward until they have come to an end.

On humanitarian grounds, will the right hon. Gentleman bring forward the date of the local government election on 20 May by at least two months? In that way, the political shenanigans and the slanging match between the Democratic Unionist Party and the Official Unionist Party will cause the least possible damage to Ulster and its people.

I had not thought of that idea. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I dare say that we shall hear the hon. Gentleman's voice between now and 20 May.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that most of the many people whom he meets as he travels throughout the Province want nothing other than to be governed as their fellow citizens are governed in the rest of the United Kingdom?

That view is held by a number of people, but I am not in a position to say that I believe it to be the majority view.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the continuing unrest in Maze prison.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prisoners who are refusing to comply with prison rules at Maze prison.

The dirty protest in support of the campaign for political status is continuing. There are at present 405 prisoners involved, 61 fewer than when the Maze hunger strike ended on 18 December and 100 fewer than the peak number reached early in the hunger strike.

Will the Minister accept that I congratulate the Northern Ireland Office on the promptness of its publicity in response to claims emanating from the Maze prison? Last week I was in the United States of America and I found that to be the case. Does anyone who holds a responsible opinion, particularly in the Catholic Church, support the prisoners' contention that they were tricked into a settlement when they called off the hunger strike in late December?

I know of no individual who has made any such claim. I have never heard such a claim articulated in any rational or meaningful form

Will my hon. Friend resist any temptation to make any progressive and humane reforms in the prison administration of Northern Ireland until the present indiscipline has come to an end?

No. The Government will not be influenced against pursuing rational and proper courses by the illegal activities of prisoners.

How can the Government hope for a return to normality in the Maze prison, when they continue to accord special category status to several hundred prisoners in defiance of their own principle that such status is unjustified and unacceptable?

In principle, special category status was abolished five years ago. The Government have accelerated the practice of phasing it out. That demonstrates clearly the Government's rejection of the concept of special category status. As long ago as 1975 a previous Secretary of State established the practice of leaving sentenced prisoners to serve out their time in the conditions under which they had embarked on them. A retrospective alteration of those terms gives rise to far wider considerations, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated to the right hon. Gentleman in her reply to him on 15 February.

Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accept my assurance that he will receive the same firm support from this House that he enjoyed before, and that we very much welcome his constant stand? Should not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary so that prison reforms in every part of the United Kingdom can march together?

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his assurance—which I am sure is valid—that the House completely supports the maintenance of the rule of law and the authority of the lawfully elected Government in the face of violence. As regards my hon. Friend's second question, there is a special situation in Northern Ireland because many young prisoners are serving very long sentences. To some extent, that distinguishes Northern Ireland from the rest of the British Isles.

asked the Prime Minister, if she will list her official engagements for 12 February.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Mauritius. This evening I shall preside at a dinner given in his honour.

Why does the Prime Minister continue to refuse to reflate on the ground that it always leads to worse inflation, when in fact all previous reflations—with the exception of the disastrous Barber reflation—have not led to a surge of inflation or to higher unemployment? Does not the right hon. Lady see that what the country desperately needs now is not an ever greater squeeze on credit leading to ever-increasing unemployment, but an expansion of credit provided that such expansion is channelled into public as well as private investment, that would cut unemployment without being inflationary.

If we were to reflate on top of the present level of inflation it would lead to hyperinflation and unemployment. There is no doubt about that.

Will the Prime Minister reconsider the cost of unemployment that she gave in her speech last Thursday? This morning, an article in The Times "Business News" suggested that the total direct and indirect cost to the Government of unemployment-based on Treasury figures—was £5,000 per worker.

With respect to the right hon. Gentleman the two things are wholly different. I gave the cost of unemployment benefit coupled with social security benefit. Those figures are accurate. The right hon. Gentleman has given figures that show how the Exchequer would benefit if everyone were in work. If everyone were in work, producing goods and services that some one else could buy without subsidy, there would be no problem.

As the Leader of the Opposition was good enough to send a message of good will and congratulations last week to the Salisbury branch of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, will the Prime Minister find time today to send a similar message of good will and congratulations to the Duke of Edinburgh, on his outstanding speech on Monday?

I am sure that in elevated situations people share the Government's thoughts that, although we wish nuclear weapons had never been invented, the potential aggressor has a large stock, and a particularly great supply of SS20s. Any Government who wish to defend their people must ensure that there are sufficient nuclear weapons to deter an aggressor.

Might it not be the case that the late Lord Louis Mountbatten knew even more about war and nuclear weapons than the Duke of Edinburgh? Might I put another question to the right hon. Lady? Since the Leader of the House stated in a notable speech that the Government are in the right frame of mind to recognise reality and to acknowledge mistakes, will the right hon. Lady reconsider the serious reply that she gave me on Tuesday about the coal industry? Does she not accept that she appeared to wash her hands of the whole issue? Will she not look afresh at the matter, recognise the seriousness of the situation, and promise that the Government will intervene?

With regard to the three matters that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, the late Lord Louis Mountbatten was never a unilateralist, nor would he ever have been. He had too much regard for the liberties of this country to lay down any weapons unilaterally. With regard to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I wholly agree that there is excellent stuff in it. For example

"An attack on inflation is an attack on unemployment, and the most enduring safeguard against unemployment would be the elimination of inflation."

Go on.

I could go on—it is such a marvellous speech. The right hon. Gentleman invites me to go on. I am ready to accept that invitation.

"We must not abandon the long-term strategic approach in which we believe,"

Is the right hon. Lady seriously saying that in this critical situation she will refuse to call the tripartite meetings which we had on the coal industry and which saved the coal industry following the experiences of 1974? When we came in then, we had to call those tripartite discussions to deal with the matter. That is what the right hon. Lady will have to do on this occasion. Will she not decide to do it now instead of being forced to do it later?

No, Sir, and I am not forced to do many things.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the adoption by the Labour Party of unilateral disarmament, the increasing number of Labour Back Benchers who seem to be apologists for Soviet imperialism and the increasing number of Trotskyists being adopted to fight GLC and parliamentary seats under the Labour Party banner pose one of the greatest threats to democracy in Britain today?

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I am sorry that the Labour Party will not be ready to defend the benefits which it enjoys under democracy.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 February.

I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Has the right hon. Lady had time to read The Times report this morning that the Government intend to drop their new sickness benefit scheme? Is that the case? Does she realise that if it is, the news will be received with great joy by many small businesses?

The answer is "No". It will not appear in a Bill which is due to appear immediately. New proposals have arisen which match more closely the sums which will be paid out under the scheme with the amounts which would be returned under the scheme and we are considering those further before putting them into legislative form.

Does anyone think that Poland would today be facing a serious threat of invasion by Russian forces if it possessed its own independent nuclear deterrent?

I think that the answer must be "No". I must make it quite clear that, while the policy of unilateralism may be espoused on the Opposition side of the House, it is totally and utterly rejected on this side.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to read again the report of the Silver Jubilee Committee on Access for Disabled People, particularly the main recommendation that there should be legislation to strengthen the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970? Will she undertake that the Government will facilitate such legislation?

I cannot undertake to facilitate any extra legislation at the moment. I can only say that I am anxious that local authorities should provide access for the disabled, and I congratulate my own local authority on its record in this respect.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to look again at the Scott report? Does she agree that there is a glaring unfairness between public and private pensions, because, despite what the Scott report says, private pension schemes cannot possibly afford to fund inflation-proofed pensions?

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that private pension schemes could not possibly afford inflation-proofed pensions on the scale on which they are provided for the public service. I hope that we shall have time to discuss the Scott report thoroughly. It suggested at one point that the Government could provide a cut-off point for index linking, but no one has thought to pursue that for the time being until matters are further discussed in this House.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 February.

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

Will the Prime Minister take time today to study closely the havoc which the closure of the Linwood car factory will cause to the economy of Scotland? Does she recall that when she was elected it was pointed out that her Government represented the South and the South only? Will she therefore look at what has happened in the car industry, which has been supported by the Government through British Leyland and allowed to continue at Coventry while the Scottish car industry has been smashed into the ground?

Scotland has a number of opportunities in connection with the oil industry which are not available elsewhere. Although I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the closure at Linwood, I doubt very much whether the people there would begrudge their fellow car workers a reasonable future in the plant at Ryton.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider relations between Britain and Canada? Is she aware that the Canadian Prime Minister is insisting publicly that she undertook to impose a three-line Whip to put through this House his proposals on patriation of the constitution? Will she confirm that that is not correct? Will she also confirm the view of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that the duty of this House is to consider the wishes of the Canadian people as a whole and not the diktat of Mr. Trudeau?

Three-line Whips or any other Whipping are not decided upon until some 10 days before the business of the House, when we know exactly what the position is and exactly what the request is that we may have to honour. I wholly confirm what I have said previously on this matter. We have not received any request from the Canadian Government. When we receive a request, I believe that it is our duty to deal with it as expeditiously as possible.

When the Prime Minister meets the Prime Minister of Mauritius later today, will she discuss with him the implications and the possible effect that the proposed closure of the Tate and Lyle factory will have upon ACP countries? Will she also reconsider her decision about meeting an all-party parliamentary delegation to discuss this matter, because we all believe that a Government initiative could save the refinery?

I fully expect that the Prime Minister of Mauritius will raise the question of sugar refining, although I understand that an undertaking has been given to refine most of the sugar under the ACP agreements. I believe that the hon. Gentleman represents the constituency in which the Tate and Lyle factory is found. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food flew back from Brussels to receive a delegation. I do not think that I can duplicate his receiving that delegation. I will always see the hon. Member himself in whose constituency a factory closure is about to occur.

Mr. Allan Stewart.

rose—

Order. I have already called the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart). I shall call the Leader of the Opposition afterwards.

With regard to Linwood, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Secretary of State and Department of Industry will now do everything possible to put to Nissan-Datsun the fact that it could be in that company's best commercial interests to reconsider going to a green field site and intend to build on the site at Linwood, using the skilled work force there?

Linwood is, of course, located in my hon. Friend's constituency. I understand that Nissan is studying the feasibility of coming to a green field site in this country. I do not think that there is any possibility of dissuading it from that, because that is what it wants.

I thank the right hon. Lady for the generous reply which she made a few minutes ago. Will she be dealing with the correspondence herself, or will some Minister be put in charge of these requests? Will she undertake to publish each week in the Official Report the requests from all my hon. Friends to visit the factories that are due to close? May I immediately request to her to come and look at the closures in my own constituency? Will she publish her diary in the next week?

As usual, the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. I said that I would see the Member of a constituency in which a main factory closure occurs. A large delegation must always go to the Minister concerned, just as the main delegation went to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I personally shall see the Member. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman greets such a courtesy so churlishly.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recall that some years ago, when I asked a question at Prime Minister's Question Time about a speech made by the Duke of Edinburgh, you quite correctly ruled that such a question was not permitted if it was critical in any way. Does that ruling still stand? Today there was a question about a speech by the Duke of Edinburgh, which brought a response from the Prime Minister. Both the question and the reply were highly complimentary, because, as it happens, what the Duke of Edinburgh said seems to agree with Tory policy. Does not that place those of us who wish to put a contrary view about a speech by the Duke of Edinburgh—which by implication would be critical—at a disadvantage, under the rules of House? Should not that point be looked at?

The whole House is aware that I am its servant. I do my best to ensure that the rules of the House are observed. One of our fundamental rules is that any reference to a member of the Royal Family must be couched in courteous terms.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for me to suggest that I could apply my medical services to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who was not present today or yesterday to answer questions—?

Order. I do not want to enter into a discussion on private medicine today.