asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many redundancies have been notified to the Department of Commerce between July 1980 and the present date.

From 1 July 1980 to 2 March 1981, 31,250 proposed redundancies were notified to the Department of Manpower Services.

I wish that I enjoyed the optimism of the hon. Gentleman in thinking that the prospective redundancies will not take place. To what extent have those redundancies been considered in the context of the island of Ireland as a whole? Would it not be an idea if the Government were to find a way of correlating the figures for the Six Counties with Ireland as a whole rather than considering them merely as an appendage of the United Kingdom unemployment and temporary short-time statistics? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that would end the disgraceful situation whereby the published United Kingdom unemployment figures do not take into account the unemployment figures for the Six Counties?

The hon. Gentleman's question is a little confusing. On a monthly basis we make clear what the unemployment figures in Northern Ireland are. It is right and proper that we should try to deal with the problems of Northern Ireland separately from those of the Republic. If there is a benefit from economic co-operation, that is another matter.

Is the Minister aware that the average level of redundancy payments in Northern Ireland is lower than it is in the affluent parts of Great Britain and significantly lower than the £15,000 payable to coal miners? What do the Government propose to do to provide justice and some hope for those who are being thrown out of work in Northern Ireland and who need a decent deal on redundancy payments?

If the hon. Gentleman's figures for the statutory scheme are correct they reflect lower earnings in the Province and, possibly, shorter service. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Harland and Wolff workers benefit from the shipbuilding redundancy payment scheme.

Is it not true that the Minister has today notified Northern Ireland Members that it is his intention to increase the funds available to the Northern Ireland redundancy fund, because he believes that there will be a dramatic increase in the numbers of redundancies in the Province? In view of the proposals announced in the Budget, particularly concerning tobacco and beer, is it not inevitable that there will be a massive increase in redundancies in those two industries?

It is quite correct that I have notified the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members of an intention as a matter of common prudence to increase the ceiling of the redundancy fund. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have made no secret of the fact—I do not do so on this occasion—that I expect unemployment in Northern Ireland to continue rising for some while yet.

Does the Minister accept that his answers mask the true position in Northern Ireland? Will he accept that a number of part-time workers, including many in the public service, are not registered as unemployed and many workers have been sacked and are not receiving redundancy pay? The House needs to know more. Will the hon. Gentleman collate more accurate figures and make an early announcement to the House?

The gross figure that I gave to the House was not correct as regards the number of redundancies that will take place. Equally, there are some circumstances in which redundancies do not have to be notified, but, bearing in mind the time and expense that would be involved in collecting those figures, I do not see that there would be any benefit in that excercise. The notified redundancies give us a good indication of the situation.

rose—

Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson), but I must make clear that I cannot go through every group and every party on every question.

Which party does the hon. Gentleman belong to?

Will the Minister of State take note that on 12 February roughly 17 percent, of the labour force in the textile industry in Northern Ireland had lost their jobs? Unemployment in the industry is rising all the time and the figure of 17 per cent, amounted to 4,796 jobs. Is the Minister aware that the delay in strengthening the multi-fibre arrangement is having a crippling effect on the industry?

The hon. Gentleman voted"Yes".

What pressure is the Minister bringing on the Commission to strengthen the MFA, and when may we expect a speedy revision of the arrangement? When will the hon. Gentleman announce to the House some progress in that direction?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the ranks of those of us who are concerned to get a successor to the MFA. That is exactly what Ministers have said that they will achieve—a successor to the present arrangement that is at least as tough.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether, in view of his difficulties in making progress in the recent discussions with political parties, he will make it his policy to decide the future of Northern Ireland in the interests of all the people of the United Kingdom and Ireland and not allow any part of the United Kingdom to veto such options.

Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 affirms that:

"in no event will Northern Ireland or any part of it cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland".

I understand that it would be fatal to ignore the views of the people who live there, but is it not true that the failure to agree a satisfactory way forward at the recent talks was due largely to the lack of willingness of the leaders of the majority party to compromise? In view of that, is it not true to say that the veto prolongs the agony for most of the people of Northern Ireland?

It is not my business to apportion blame, as the hon. Gentleman seeks to do, to any party in the discussions. The Government's position is clear. We seek a way forward, politically, but we are certain that any way forward that will last must have the support and agreement of all those who live in Northern Ireland.

In view of a continuing absence of political agreement among the Conservative, Labour, Liberal and other parties, will the Government continue to govern the country in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole and not allow any section to veto their intentions?

Direct rule will continue in the present situation, but the Government hope that the parties that fought the election on the basis that they would seek some form of political progress, as did the right hon. Gentleman's party, will be able to come together with the other parties, not to find out precisely what should be done, but what framework or machinery would be acceptable to everybody.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the leaders of the Ulster Farmers Union.

In the near future, but a precise date has not yet been arranged.

When the Secretary of State meets leaders of the UFU will he assure them that he repudiates the view put forward by Mr. O'Kennedy on his recent visit to the effect that the importation of feed grains is bad for Northern Ireland? Will the Secretary of State also give the UFU a date for the extension of the less-favoured areas and assure farmers that something will be done to help their financial position in the coming financial year, if not in the current financial year?

The Government fully recognise the difficulties of farmers in Northern Ireland. It is our belief that we shall be able to put forward, as the United Kingdom, a proposition on less-favoured areas to the European Commission later this year.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the aggregate income of Northern Ireland farmers declined by 60 per cent, last year and by 48 per cent, in the previous year? Does not that represent a crisis for agriculture in Northern Ireland which demands urgent action by the Government?

I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman's figures. I am urgently considering what we can do.

Would the Secretary of State be surprised if Ulster farmers never wanted to meet him again, following his unfulfilled promises made at a previous meeting? Does he recognise that the farmers of Northern Ireland are going through a crisis period? They want help to reduce the high cost of feedstuffs, improved grazing stocks, a reintroduction of the milk aid and an extension of less-favoured areas. Unless help is forthcoming and soon, the militancy of the Northern Ireland farmers leaders will make Arthur Scargill appear like a member of the Social Democratic Alliance.

I am not sure whether that is meant to be a threat. My understanding of the position of the leaders of the UFU is that they represent people who have a serious problem, which they know that the Government recognise. I am happy to say that they are prepared to meet me to discuss how we can go forward. That is much the best way.

Order. I must appeal to hon. Members not to argue a case but to ask questions.

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

Parts of the border areas continue to present particular problems of law and order. Since 12 February, when I last answered questions in the House, six explosive devices have been found in border areas. No one has been seriously injured by terrorist activity around the border, but considerable damage was caused by a car bomb that exploded outside Clogher RUC station on 25 February.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it does not matter what he does—and there is still much to be done in the border area—if his actions are not reciprocated on the other side of the border where a safe haven still exists for terrorists? Was that not best exemplified by a recent High Court case in Dublin where Mr. Martin O'Hanlon successfully challenged an extradition warrant to the North on the basis that he was waging war against British Government forces and the RUC?

The co-operation of the security forces in the Republic is improving and that is something of which we can be glad. It is no secret that the Government believe that extradition would be a great help in the apprehension of criminals, but, in default of the agreement of the Republic to the sort of extradition procedures that we should like, it is gratifying to note that it is using the extra-territorial jurisdiction Acts. Four people have been tried under those Acts recently and one case is currently under consideration in the Republic. Of course, I cannot comment on that.

Do we not remember today with gratitude Sir Maurice Oldfield, who greatly helped to improve security co-operation on the border and throughout the Province?

I knew the late Sir Maurice Oldfield only in the latter part of his life when, having retired from a lifetime of service to this country, he came out of retirement to help us in Northern Ireland. He made a most notable contribution to the effectiveness of the security effort in Northern Ireland and he will be very greatly missed by all his colleagues and by the many friends that be made.

Does not the Secretary of State realise that, although many of us wish that reciprocal arrangements could be arranged with the Republic, the pressures from the people in the Republic, because of the dreadful history of violence during occupation throughout the centuries, are so great that, whoever leads in the Republic does not believe that these arrangements can be undertaken at this stage no matter what we think—as was pointed out in The Observer last weekend?

This is precisely why the Government are glad that the extra-territorial jurisdiction arrangements made between the United Kingdom and the Republic are being operated by both parties at the moment.

Now that trade has increased between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, is the Secretary of State satisfied about the safety of the millions of pounds worth of goods that are transported across the border?

No Secretary of State can ever be satisfied if any kind of crime takes place. There is a great deal of traffic across the border between North and South, in both directions, which largely goes unchallenged and without difficulty. Where there are thefts or raids upon goods and traffic, this is a matter to which the security forces in Northern Ireland, as in any other country, pay particular attention and try to stop.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to allocate some or all of the additional cellular accommodation to be created in Her Majesty's prisons in Northern Ireland to the elimination of special category status.

The allocation of the additional cellular accommodation that will become available will depend on the size of the Northern Ireland prison population at the time. As regards the elimination of special category status, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 15 January.

In the light of the Minister's reply, may we take it that cellular accommodation will, at any rate in part, be available for this purpose, if Her Majesty's Government decide to comply with their own principle of ending special category status?

There is no doubt that, so far as I can see, judging by the figures, about 400 to 600 extra cells, which are likely to become available when we open Magilligan this year and Maghaberry towards the end of next year, will take up the balance of cellular pressure that exists in the Maze and Belfast prisons, where there is a good deal of doubling up. I cannot be specific about what relation this may have to special category prisoners in the compounds until we know what will be the prison population in 1982.

Will the Minister agree that, while all hon. Members, I believe, are not prepared to accept the idea of special category, many people who have been convicted of offences in Northern Ireland have been convicted without a jury trial? They have been tried under the Diplock procedures. Will he also accept that, in certain cases, the rules of evidence have been changed as they would not be changed within the mainland of the United Kingdom? While these people may not be entitled to special category status, they are different—a factor that must be borne in mind by Her Majesty's Administration within the Six Counties.

I accept that there are no jury trials for terrorist offences but the hon. Gentleman will also know that there are no jury trials in the Republic for similar kinds of offences. I have no reason to believe that the absence of jury trials undermines in any way the full validity, fairness and equity of the judicial procedures that convict and sentence prisoners.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any further plans to meet the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

I have no plans to do so, but my colleagues and I will continue to meet Ministers from the Republic as and when appropriate.

Will the Secretary of State accept that many hon. Members are happy that this kind of contact is taking place regularly and that we believe it will help? Will he also accept that the failure of the Prime Minister to report fully to the House immediately after the last meeting and to give hon. Members the chance to question her democratically is still reverberating and allowing those who want to stop us struggling together to solve the common problem constantly to hinder us? Will the right hon. Gentleman exert what democratic pressures he can on the Prime Minister to ensure that next time such meetings occur we have an immediate report, followed by questions?

I cannot accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. What was discussed between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach in December was clearly set out in the communique issued thereafter. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right that Ministers from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland should meet regularly in pursuit of matters of common interest. That can only help us all.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether he has received from the joint study groups any reports, interim or final, that were to be made available before he next met Ministers in the Republic? Will he tell the House, if he has received such reports, from what study groups they came?

No reports have been received. They will be made to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Will the Secretary of State now pay heed to the plea that we have made often from this Bench—that there should be interim reports on the activities of these study groups at frequent intervals?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear that these groups consist of officials who are reporting to the two Heads of Government. They have many matters to consider. They will do so and report as and when they think fit, or when my right hon. Friend calls for reports. This has not so far proved necessary, because the studies are at an early stage and still proceeding.

Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the next meeting with the Eire Prime Minister to take place in Crossmaglen, Tullyvalley or Bessbrook, or in County Fermanagh, or any other part of Northern Ireland, where many people are daily and nightly under threat of death from the Provisional IRA, so that he and Mr. Haughey can experience some of the bitter reality of terrorism that has destroyed 2,300 people and injured 25,000? Is he aware that many of those responsible for this state of affairs are in the Irish Republic, as was pointed out by The Observer last Sunday?

I repeat my original answer, that I have no plans to meet the Taoiseach. The next meeting will take place between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. The place and the timing are matters for her.

At the next appropriate meeting between Ministers, will the Secretary of State express our regret at the happenings in Belfast last week on the occasion of the visit of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, and our rejection of politicians, some of them hon. Members of the House—or sometimes Members of the House—who acted as they did on that occasion?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says. The whole House feels that there is nothing to be gained by the kind of gross discourtesy that took place on that occasion. I shall convey those feelings.

Is the Secretary of State aware that it appears that the Dublin conference will not lie down and that, judging from the neutrality debate in the Dail yesterday, it looks as if both Governments are experiencing slight problems over this matter? In my view, there should be a meeting between Heads of State as soon as possible if only to rectify problems and to enable them to report back, as should have happened after the last meeting.

The right hon. Gentleman is right and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in Belfast last week, the Government believe that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, on the one hand, and of the Republic, on the other, that meetings between Heads of Government should take place, that they should consider and discuss together ways of improving relationships. That the Government are determined to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the undertakings of European Economic Community aid for Northern Ireland agriculture given in the House on 26 February will be implemented.

As the Italian Minister has not yet signified his agreement to the complete package of measures, I regret that I cannot say when the regulations will be approved by the Council of Ministers.

Will the Minister impress on his noble Friend in charge of agriculture in the Province the dire needs of the producers of milk and beef and pigs and poultry for financial help at least to bring them up to the same level of payment received by their contemporaries on the mainland?

Generally speaking, the measures to which the question refers, I believe, are those which will not have an immediate impact on those particular sectors.

Will the Minister agree that, almost daily in Northern Ireland, an announcement is made from some source, in the media, to the effect that further grants, further money and a further bonanza are to be given to Northern Ireland from EEC sources? In the atmosphere of poverty and deprivation that exists in the Six Counties, people's hopes are built only to be doused a few weeks later. Will the Minister try to take some steps to ensure that when announcements are made, there is some degree of truth in them?

The regulations to which I referred in my answer involve a considerable sum—about £38 million—of Community expenditure over the next 10 years. It is not the fault of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the measures have not been approved. He will continue to press for general agreement so that they can proceed.

Will the Minister ensure that the EEC funds are not blocked by delaying tactics by other member States? May we have a guarantee that, if and when the EEC grant is given, the reduced cost of grain handling will be passed on to the Northern Ireland fanners? What provision is there to ensure that fanners who cannot match the level of grant offered receive cheap loans?

I think that I am allowed to select only one of those three questions. Clearly, we cannot prevent an Agriculture Minister from another member State blocking the arrangements. However, we hope that he will withdraw his obstruction in the near future. One of the regulations applies directly to animal feed processing.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to undertake a review of the building control system in Northern Ireland, following the initiatives taken by the Secretary of State for the Environment relating to England and Wales.

I shall be considering the need for a review of the building control system in Northern Ireland to take account of the changes proposed in England and Wales. The established practice in Northern Ireland is to follow as closely as possible the England and Wales pattern for building regulations whilst making allowance for local factors.

I am grateful for that reply. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Northern Ireland building regulations could be simplified without lowering the standards of safety and health? Is he prepared to take the initiative in seeking talks with the equivalent Ministers in the Welsh and Scottish Offices and the Department of the Environment to see whether building regulations can be unified throughout the United Kingdom instead of having four different sets?

We want to follow every good practice available in terms of simplicity and, if necessary, uniformity. However, we do not want to make a fetish of uniformity as an end in itself. We wish to follow best practice. We are in consultations with the Department of the Environment about the proposals in hand for England and Wales. We shall almost certainly follow them.

Will the Minister of State ensure that his officials keep in constant touch with their opposite numbers in Departments on the mainland with a view to ensuring that there is the utmost uniformity between the two sets of regulations and that, if possible, the reform is made in one instrument which can be debated as a whole by the House? Will he ensure that in any case there will be no difference in time in the application of any changes in the different parts of the United Kingdom?

I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's point, which he has made before. We do not want any unnecessary time lag in introducing into the Province good practice which might not be already available.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is now the aggregate cost to public funds of all subventions irrevocably committed to the De Lorean corporation; what is the current level of employment by the corporation; what is the ratio of the latter to the former; and what is his best estimate of compensation payable in the event of withdrawal of Her Majesty's Government's support.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the financial control of De Lorean Cars.

The Government's commitment to the DMC-12 project comprises grants of £28·5 million and loans of £20·7 million. The Northern Ireland Development Agency has subscribed £17·8 million in the form of participating preference share capital. De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd. currently employs about 1,030 people.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those details. We shall want to study them with care. May I congratulate my hon. Friend on resisting the latest financial blandishments by this American gentleman, so far? Has he noticed the American gentleman's plans to build another car plant in the South of Ireland? What plans do we have to scrutinise financial cross-fertilisation between Belfast and Shannon?

We must see whether the De Lorean companies establish themselves in Southern Ireland. I am anxious to see that the present exercise is successful. We regularly monitor the companies' financial affairs. We see monthly statements of one type or another, quarterly statements and the audited financial accounts.

Will the Minister confirm that the Department has a majority of voting shares and therefore retains effective control? Does he accept that some degree of financial accountability is owed to the House? Therefore, will he ensure that parliamentary questions about such matters as the contract with Lotus Cars and the fees paid to directors are answered in the House, so that we can be confident that the project is going ahead with the minimum of reward to the directors and that they are not making a fat killing?

The Government do not have the majority of voting shares. NIDA's share is only in redeemable preference share capital. In addition, we have two nominees on the boards of the car company and the parent company in America so that we are able to keep a close scrutiny on what goes on. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) never ceases to ask questions about this company. It is not right to disclose commercially confidential information.

Since my hon. Friend, in common with any objective analyst, must now be discarding any notion that these cars will be built or sold commercially, will he assure the House that he thinks that the project has some merit as a job creation scheme?

Any company employing 1,000 people in Northern Ireland, with prospects of increasing the number to 1,400 in June, is well worth supporting. My hon. Friend mentioned the commercial nature of the exercise. I wish that he would come to Northern Ireland and see the plant. It is remarkable. It is turning out cars at the rate of between 20 and 25 a day and the first are expected to be shipped before the end of the month.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total allocation for housing associations in the Province and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, respectively, for the financial year 1981–82.

To the nearest £1 million the proposed expenditure programmes for 1981–82 at outturn prices are as follows: Northern Ireland Housing Executive gross capital and revenue expenditure £328 million; Housing Association expenditure, in which I know the hon. Gentleman is interested, £19 million.

Does the Minister accept that the increase of about £7 million in the allocation to housing associations in the Province will be welcomed, particularly since that allocation will help with the housing costs of the elderly? Is the Minister satisfied that the allocation to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive will enable it not only to begin 3,500 new dwellings but to provide an unbroken and prompt flow of repair and renovation grants?

We particularly welcome the work that the housing association movement is doing for the elderly, for the rehabilitation schemes in Belfast, for the special needs of the handicapped, for hostels and so on. Final arrangements are being made with the Housing Executive about the way in which it will conduct its capital programme.

So that we may know the improvement that has been achieved for next year, may we be given the comparable figures for this year?

The housing association increases are from £13 million to £19 million, and for the Housing Executive from £292 million to £328 million.

Will the Minister clarify the relationship between the Housing Executive's allocation and the building societies' funds that have recently been apportioned to the Northern Ireland housing sector? Will not he accept that the figure that he has just announced falls far short of what the Housing Executive believes is required merely to stand still, and that that reduced budget will not make a significant dent in the waiting lists in the Province?

Having just announced a substantial increase in the sums that are to be devoted to housing in Belfast, I find it odd that the hon. Gentleman should talk about a reduction when there has been no reduction. Since, Mr. Speaker, you made a ruling that I should answer only one question, I shall leave it at that.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on which of the official working parties considering possible new institutional structures with the Republic of Ireland officials of his Department are represented.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) on 2 February.

In the discussion about new institutional structures will my right hon. Friend say whether extradition is on the agenda and whether he or those involved in the working parties are considering drawing up either a new agreement or a new treaty with the Republic of Ireland to clarify the situation?

The range of discussions that are taking place was fully covered in my right hon. Friend's statement and in the communique issued after the meeting in Dublin with the Taoiseach. The range of matters which are to be discussed by the two Governments was spelt out there, and officials are currently doing the preparatory work prior to reporting to the Heads of Governments before their next meeting.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now come clean with the people of Northern Ireland and state exactly what the guide lines are in the discussions that are taking place in Dublin at the Anglo-Eire study group?

Those guide lines were clearly spelt out in the answer that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Belfast, East on 2 February.

While I welcome the discussions, may I ask the Secretary of State to give us more information about what is taking place in the debate that is now fixed for next Wednesday? Can we be given further information about what progress has been made?

I have no official knowledge of what is happening next Wednesday.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), Official Report, 15 January, column 1524, what progress he has made with his examination of the effects on the economy of Northern Ireland of the Province's higher energy costs compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.

The review of electricity supply arrangements in Northern Ireland, to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) on 15 January, is now complete. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 5 March, the Government will be taking steps to bring electricity prices in Northern Ireland more closely into line with those in England and Wales and to keep them there. Work continues on the evaluation of whether natural gas can be economically supplied to Northern Ireland from the Kinsale field.

Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister's welcome undertaking that reform of electricity costs can best be implemented by integrating the Northern Ireland organisations supplying electricity and other forms of energy with those in the remainder of the United Kingdom?

I am sure that all hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will join in the welcome that the hon. Gentleman has extended. We still have to work out the precise details, but I am sure that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland they will be found equitable.

As Northern Ireland is the poorest region of the United Kingdom, should not electricity users in the Province be granted parity with the lowest level of tariffs in Great Britain?

In the debate the hon. Gentleman argued for bringing the level down to the average, but now he chooses the lowest level. He will have to wait for the Government's announcement.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the constitutional future of the Province.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with political parties in Northern Ireland relating to the constitutional development of the Province.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he proposes to take any new constitutional initiatives.

As I said earlier this afternoon, the constitutional status of the Province remains as set out in section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. It will not cease to be a part of the United Kingdom without the prior consent of the people of Northern Ireland.

I agree that there will be no consensus on devolution, but when will my right hon. Friend be ready to inform the House about the plans for Ulsterisation, a possible Grand Committee, and the functions of district councils, which are to be re-elected in May?

These are among the matters that I am currently considering. The decision about a Grand Committee is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but if my hon. Friend wishes the matter to be considered, we shall, of course, consider it.

As an interim measure, will my right hon. Friend propose the creation of a Northern Ireland Grand Committee with power to sit in Belfast?

I give my hon. Friend the same answer that I gave earlier. It is more a matter for my right Friend the Leader of the House than for me. However, as the suggestion has been made, the Government will, of course, consider it.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

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.

Will the Prime Minister find time to consider the reprimand by the Advertising Standards Authority to Saatchi and Saatchi for using misleading headlines? Does she accept that the most misleading case put by Saatchi and Saatchi was presenting the Tory Party as a family party? Does not the vicious Budget yesterday and the ending of the Rooker-Wise index-linking mean that she is turning her back on people with the lowest incomes? Does she agree with her hon. Friend—for the moment—the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) that her policies are losing her the confidence of the City, the Cabinet, the Conservative Party at Westminister, industry and, most of all, the people of the country?

I should have thought that the fact that my right hon. Friend and learned Friend was putting up child benefit by 50p showed a deliberate preference in the Budget for families. It was a deliberate policy. The hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that, in spite of the difficulties, we are able to do something for the disabled. Moreover, I should have thought that he would welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services yesterday that there would be an increase of £2 billion for social services.

Will the Prime Minister remind the nation and the doom-mongers and critics around her that, if interest rates and inflation are to come down further, there must be a far more determined effort to cut Government borrowing and wasteful public spending?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that one reason why we have to find so much in tax and borrowing is that we previously agreed such a high level of public expenditure. Indeed, the level of public expenditure for next year is higher in real terms than this year. That is why taxes and borrowing are high.

The right hon. Lady refers to public expenditure and she referred in her speech yesterday to extra public expenditure and to those who were not prepared to accept the consequences of the Government's action. Can she say whether we are to assume, as others have done, that she was referring to members of her own Cabinet?

I was thinking of right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, who constantly urge increased public expenditure, day after day, and then attempt to deny the means to pay for it. I think in particular of the right hon. Gentleman, who should remember that every extra pound that the Opposition advocate in public expenditure has to come out of their constituents' pockets.

Is the right hon. Lady repudiating the suggestion, which appears, for example, in the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph, that she was referring to members of her own Cabinet? Is she aware that the Daily Mail says"Maggie Thunders at Wets"? Does not the right hon. Lady think that she has been responsible for the biggest leak of the year, even from this leaky Cabinet?

I take up my time fighting right hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.

Would not the cost of indexing personal allowances have been approximately equal to the amount already paid out under the arrangements made by Professor Clegg and others for comparability in the public sector? Therefore, could not those in the public sector be said already to have received the benefit, whereas, as usual, it is those in the private sector who continue to pay?

As far as I recall, the cost of fully indexing personal allowances and thresholds in a full year would be about £2·5 billion, which is about the amount of the increase in pay in the public sector. I cannot emphasise too much that the more that we put up current expenditure, the less money there is for capital projects on which many of us would like to embark. The more that current expenditure goes up for people who are already in jobs, the less money there is for people to purchase goods and services and to relieve unemployment.

Can the Prime Minister tell us of any Budget during her membership of the House that has been so universally condemned?

I most certainly can. Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember the Second Labour Budget, when the standard rate of income tax went up to 35p? Has he such a short memory?

asked the Prime Minister what response she intends to make to Mr. Brezhnev's proposals concerning European security.

We are examining President Brezhnev's proposals with our Allies. I welcome any proposals that will lead to effective and verifiable measures of arms control, but I cannot accept proposals designed to give unilateral advantages to the Soviet Union at the expense of the West.

Does the Prime Minister believe that we have anything to lose by accepting the Soviet proposal to extend the area of notification for troop movements, including naval, air and large-scale troop movements, to the whole of the European part of the Soviet Union? If we have anything to lose, what is it? If we have not, will there be a quick and positive response?

As far as I understand and recall that aspect of President Brezhnev's speech, he said that he was prepared to extend confidence-building measures to the Urals, providing that the West would respond by extending them, rather beyond Europe. We want to know what that means.

Find out.

Indeed, we are trying to do exactly that. We already have the whole of Europe in those confidence-building measures. It would seem unwise to extend the measures to the United States.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that genuine and balanced disarmament is a Western aspiration? If President Brezhnev has realistic proposals in that regard, can she confirm that the West will not dismiss them out of hand?

We all want genuine and balanced reductions in armaments. We cannot have reductions that put the West at a disadvantage in defending our way of life.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Russians expressed interest in the French proposals at Madrid for a European conference on disarmament and for confidence-building measures? Will the Government give full and unequivocal support to the French proposals so that we can advance the Madrid process further later this year?

It was the French proposal that suggested that confidence building measures should be extended to the Urals as the quid pro quo for having them in the whole of Europe. As I understand it, President Brezhnev wishes the West to go even further. If that is so, we shall have to consider going in the other direction, beyond the Urals.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that talks on arms limitation with the Russians could be entered into with much more enthusiasm by the West once the Russians have withdrawn from Afghanistan?

I entirely agree. The same also applies to the Helsinki accord, once implemented.

asked the Prime Minister if she has made any special arrangements to co-ordinate the efforts of Her Majesty's Government aimed at reforming the structures and policies of the European Community in advance of the United Kingdom's presidency of the Council of Ministers.

The Government are as eager as my hon. Friend to achieve satisfactory progress on the restructuring of the Community budget, and this will be one of the main priorities of our presidency. The existing machinery for the co-ordination of policy towards the European Community is well established, and I see no need for additional special arrangements.

Would it not strengthen the Government's position in seeking the major changes required in the interests of Britain and its people if we had a White Paper setting out the Government's negotiating aims, which could be debated and approved by the House of Commons? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's intention to seek major structural reform in the CAP this year?

It is our wish and proposal to seek major reforms in the CAP, particularly those aspects of it which lead to substantial surpluses falling on the Community budget and those which lead to such a heavy burden on the Community budget as a whole. It is not our intention at present to publish a White Paper. I do not believe in publishing one's negotiating stance in advance. It is not in the best interests of the country. The Commission is due to publish its proposals on budget reform in June. We have made it clear that we believe that it should keep to that timetable. I believe that the proposals will be debated in the House before a decision is made.

Does not the Prime Minister realise that the present structure of the EEC' means that intervention is catastrophic, for instance, for the steel industry? Is she aware that in the middle of a terrible slump, with people being laid off all over the place, the EEC has issued a directive that we should cut down the amount of our money that we put into our steel industry and the amount of steel that we are producing, even though it is at rock bottom? Should we, not, therefore, come out of the Common Market, which is what the vast majority of our people want?

Rather special arrangements apply to steel. The arrangements that the Common Market made over the amounts of steel produced, which amounted to a carve-up of the steel market among Common Market countries, were beneficial to this country. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will find that the majority of the industry, including the trade unions, wishes the arrangements to continue.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that her Government's ability to negotiate the changes needed in the EEC depends on the conviction that she can convey of our intention to remain within the Community and to negotiate changes from inside?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We get a much better deal if we are seen to be loyal members of the Community. At a time when the world has tremendous difficulties, it is important that the democracies of Europe are seen to hold together and that Europe is seen as an area in which democracies co-operate.

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

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

Following a restrictive Budget and bearing in mind the ever-rising levels of unemployment, may I commend to my right hon. Friend the programme for national and economic recovery admirably spelt out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) in his speech yesterday?

I remind my hon. Friend that the actual public expenditure is not restrictive; it is expansive. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh!"] I pay attention to the facts, unlike hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. As the Chancellor announced in his Budget Statement, public expenditure will be slightly increased in real terms next year. I am at a loss to know how an increase in real terms can be descibed as being restrictive. I heard my right hon Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) on television today. He was excellent. He stated that he would back the Budget all the way, as one would expect.

Will the P'rime Minister find time today to read this morning's newspapers, which forecast a massive revolt within her own party against the 20p per gallon increase on petrol tax? If the Prime Minister cannot get a majority in the House for the 20p per gallon increase, what does she intend to so?

Many of us dislike particular aspects of taxation. No one has been more forthright in disliking heavy taxation than I have. However, the Chancellor, the Government and I have a problem. If a bill—expenditure—is already agreed, most of us accept that we must make the means available to pay it. Nothing is worse than agreeing to heavy expenditure and then not being prepared to meet, or disliking the thought of meeting, the bill when it comes. Let us see what happens on Monday night.

Will my right hon. Friend allow me to tell my constituents that she will now reconsider index-linked pensions, because they cannot accept that increases such as 20p on petrol should be imposed on them while people are allowed to receive those index-linked pensions?

The Scott report has been published. People can now see exactly what its argument was and what it said about that matter. No doubt one day we shall have a chance, I trust, to debate it in the House.

Does not the right hon. Lady agree that the announcements made in her Budget, and the arrangements made before the Budget for the increases in taxation, are in plain defiance of what she said at the election?

I am the first to admit that public expenditure has risen and that it has risen for next year. The Government have agreed to that increase in public expenditure. We must therefore decide how much must be met by taxation and how much must be met by borrowing. If I agree to expenditure, I do not flinch from paying the bill.

Can the right hon. Lady now explain to the House and the country why she made widespread promises of reductions in taxation when she fought the election when she has now proved that she cannot control the economy of the nation?

The right hon. Gentleman— [Interruption]—has forgotten the time when under his Government—[Interruption]—the standard rate of tax was 35p—

Order. The Prime Minister should not have to fight to be heard. She has a right to be heard.

The standard rate of tax was 35p. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that it is now 30p in the pound. He might also remember when his own party put up VAT on certain things to 25 per cent, and, above all, when the pound plummeted to $1·56, and his Chancellor, following his policies, finished up where the his Opposition would finish up now, namely, as supplicants to the IMF.