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

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have died as a result of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland since 16 July.

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

Since my predecessor answered questions on 16 July, the violent disturbances which occured in connection with the hunger strike have died out. I know that the House will join me in congratulating the security forces on the magnificent way in which they handled those disturbances.

Terrorist violence, however, continues at a significantly higher level than last year. Since 16 July, seven members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, two Regular soldiers, three members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and 17 civilians have been murdered by terrorists. There have also been many injured, some of them in car bomb explosions which have also cause extensive damage to property. There has been a recent spate of sectarian killings in both communities, which is a matter for additional and grave concern. That is not an encouraging picture. In my first few weeks in this office I have been deeply conscious of the misery which all this violence causes, and I extend my sympathy to those bereaved and injured.

But I should also record that, since 16 July, 312 people have been charged with serious terrorist offences, making a total of 767 charged with such offences so far this year. No fewer than 1,238 persons have been charged or summoned with offences connected with the riots. This is reassuring evidence of the professionalism and achievements of the security forces in meeting the desire of all of us to see terrorists brought to justice through the courts.

On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I extend our good wishes to the right hon. Gentleman on his first day at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We derive great satisfaction from having a senior Cabinet Minister responsible for the Northern Ireland portfolio. Does the Secretary of State share my concern over the fact that a Dublin business man, Mr. Dunne, was kidnapped after he crossed the frontier into the United Kingdom and held in a safe haven in the United Kingdom, where the terrorists obviously felt much more secure than they would have done in the Irish Republic?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.

With regard to Mr. Dunne, one is always worried about anyone who can remain, as it were, undetected in such circumstances in any part of the United Kingdom. But on this occasion the co-operation between the police forces on each side of the border was absolutely first class, and I much admired the steadfast attitude that the Southern Irish Government took towards the payment of any ransom.

Did the right hon. Gentleman hear the religious broadcast on BBC radio on Monday, in which a Roman Catholic priest equated the courageous members of the security forces with the squalid terrorists, and if so, what complaint has the right hon. Gentleman lodged with the BBC?

In order to meet the IRA's very skilful propaganda, will the right hon. Gentleman launch an intensive campaign at home and abroad against the IRA, to counter and expose the massive lies which it is putting out in an attempt to gloss over the murder, slaughter and destruction which it has caused over 12 years in Northern Ireland?

I did not hear the broadcast, but I agree with my hon. Friend that we need at all times to make certain that our very strong case, as compared with that of the terrorists, is made known. To that extent I am continually looking to see what more can be done to see that our case is made known in this country, in Northern Ireland, in the universities, and throughout the rest of the world.

I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I agree with him that there has been a great improvement in co-operation between the security forces of the two countries. May I suggest that it might help if we could have a common security zone embracing both sides of the frontier in which the security forces of the United Kingdom and the Republic could move freely?

I thank my hon. Friend. He has raised a subject to which I have not yet had time to give consideration. It is a matter that has not been drawn to my attention. I should now like to consider it.

Order. I shall now call the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, but I shall still call one more hon. Member from either side of the House after the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) has asked his supplementary question.

I, too, welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post in Northern Ireland. The more hon. Members who have first-hand experience of Northern Ireland the more will be enhanced the understanding of the problems of Northern Ireland.

I fully understand the reasons and the need for baton rounds in Northern Ireland. One has only once to face a crowd throwing stones and Molotov cocktails to understand the reasons and the need. However, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance on the criteria for the use of baton rounds? Bearing in mind recent events, I add my thanks to the security forces for their actions in this difficult period. However, why have so many baton rounds been fired? From 1973 to March 1981 the figure was 12,000. From April to August this year it was 25,000. As I have said, I fully understand the need for baton rounds, but what I and many others require is an assurance that the criteria for their use are being well and tightly observed.

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. The reason for so many baton rounds being used this summer has been the enormous increase in rioting and violence on the streets. I am glad to say that in recent weeks that has diminished to a large extent. I can assure the House that baton rounds will be used only when it is essential to protect the police and the troops in the carrying out of their business of seeking to protect private property and private persons. That remains the position.

Order. I had overlooked the fact that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) had his question 4 answered with question 2. I shall call the hon. Gentleman as well as one more hon. Member from either side of the House.

Did the right hon. Gentleman note in the press reports during the time that Mr. Dunne was being held by the IRA that the IRA in South Armagh was greatly concerned that its operations were being gravely disrupted by the increased activity of the security forces in the area? Would it not be a good idea to maintain the same level of pressure?

I did not see that report. The security forces have a role of being seen on the ground and a role of being on the ground without it being known that they are present. The fact that we do not always see troops does not mean that the troops are not present. I am satisfied from what the GOC and the Chief Constable have told me that everything that they can do is being done to win this struggle.

In view of the sad and tragic figures that have been given by the Secretary of State and the fact that the pressure from the IRA on what it describes as its five just demands has receded, will the right hon. Gentleman pay more attention to the one just demand of the Northern Ireland people—the elimination and eradication of terrorism?

I may have missed one remark that the hon. Gentleman made on the five demands. No changes were made to the prison arrangements until the hunger strike had ended. We then did very much what we had said we would do some months before. We shall do everything that we can to get on top of the problem of dealing with terrorism and to win. However, in the long run there has to be a political settlement if peace is to be achieved in Northern Ireland.

May I, too, welcome the Secretary of State and express the hope that during his tenure of office we shall see political progress towards a solution of the Northern Ireland problem? Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account that the traffic in terrorism in Northern Ireland is not all one way? Within the past three weeks, since the right hon. Gentleman has had responsibility in Northern Ireland, three innocent Catholics have been murdered in their beds in a spate of sectarian murders. Terrorism comes from both the Republican and the so-called Loyalist sections.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that recently those who have committed the most vile and brutal murders have proceeded to tell the judge that, having been apprehended and convicted, they have seen the light, that they have become Christians and that they are sorry for what they did? Some judges have taken those expressions into consideration in imposing lighter sentences than otherwise would have been passed. Does he accept that if people are guilty of such crimes they should meet the full severity of the law irrespective of whether they claim to have seen the light?

I must leave these matters to the judges. However, I am certain that the judges will have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. There have been some shocking murders from both sides of the community. The message that must go out from the House is that we abhor terrorism and murder from wherever it comes. We must get on top of the problem, not by always drawing attention to the misdeeds of one side or the other, but by making it clear to both sides that they must stop.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what meetings he plans with Ministers in the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland concerning Northern Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for a meeting with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

I met the Taoiseach, his deputy Mr. Michael O'Leary, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Ireland, in the Republic on 27 October. This was the first of what I hope will be regular visits between North and South at ministerial level. I expect to take part in the forthcoming meeting between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is a welcome for his emphasis on regular meetings between London and Dublin? Will he take the earliest opportunity to welcome the Irish Government's intention to review certain constitutional articles? Will he bring to their attention that the one constitutional amendment that would do more to bring political stability to Northern Ireland than any other would be to make it possible to extradite terrorists back to the North to face trial?

That is a matter for the Republic. I welcome Dr. FitzGerald's efforts to promote a better understanding between the peoples of Northern Ireland and the Republic by the action that he has taken. I have drawn the attention of the Taoiseach to the point on extradition that my hon. Friend has raised. The more that can be done to help get on top of the security problem the easier it will be to make moves towards a more peaceful situation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Government of the Irish Republic are a vital ingredient for any political settlement for Northern Ireland? Every hon. Member deplores the crimes and atrocities of the terrorists, from whichever side they come, but will the right hon. Gentleman, in taking on his new responsibilities and in engaging in talks, refuse to give in to the traditional bluster and hysteria of the hard-line Unionists in Northern Ireland, who in many respects are responsible for the tragedy that is occurring there?

I am trying to bring the two sides together. The language that the hon. Gentleman uses is designed to create and continue the animosities that have gone on for far too long. We must find a new way of moving forward and we must watch our language very carefully.

Mr. Michael 0' Halloran—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—Order. It is no good asking me where the hon. Gentleman is.

Is it not a fact that as a result of the recent general election in Eire, which was conducted under the system of proportional representation, the Government there have to face the fact that a tiny handful of people are in a position to bring to bear on Dr. FitzGerald enormous pressure that is out of all proportion to the number of votes that they received at the election? Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues bear that in mind when considering the value of proportional representation, which we are always told is supposed to outwit extremists?

That is a rather wider question than the one that appears on the Order Paper. All I can say is that I have noted what my hon. Friend says.

Did the Secretary of State gain the impression that Dr. FitzGerald may be trying to draw the Irish Republic closer to Britain? Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that any plans for economic cooperation have been deliberately sabotaged by Mr. Haughey, who has made, it clear that any council or committee will be used in future to detach Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom?

I have not seen Mr. Haughey's precise remarks. I believe, however, that there are great benefits to both North and South from economic co-operation. There are a number of fields where co-operation on the economy used to take place and should take place again. It could be of inestimable value to the whole of the island.

In view of the forthcoming Anglo-Irish talks, does the Secretary of State not realise that hon. Members and the people of Northern Ireland will not accept another hush-hush response as happened last time? We are all looking for a political solution to the problem. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an undertaking that more information will be made available in future. I understand that the Taoiseach also wishes that. It may be to the right hon. Gentleman's advantage and also to the advantage of the House.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, this must be a matter for the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach to decide. I believe that it is abundantly clear in this House and certainly in Northern Ireland that if the maximum amount of information can be made available there is less room for distortion of what is decided.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that Ulster people will feel very angry with a comment that he made a short time ago? I hope that it was a mistake. The right hon. Gentleman implied that the majority of people in Ulster were an obstacle to peace and that they could be equated with the ghastly people in the Provisional IRA. Will he give an assurance that the Ulster people, who seek peace, employment and prosperity for all, will be given the opportunity in a referendum to decide on any proposals that he is contemplating?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should try to put in my mouth words that I am certain I did not use. I condemn violence from whatever quarter it comes. I make that abundantly plain. Any proposals that come forward will be a matter for consultation. In the light of that, the Northern Ireland people would have to be consulted fully about anything that we did.

May I first welcome the Secretary of State's statement that ultimately a political settlement is the only way out? Will he bear in mind in any conversations with the Republic that the position of a bipartisan policy on the unity of Ireland is now changed? A decision was taken at the Labour Party conference that the aim should be the ultimate unity of the whole of Ireland. Will he bear that in mind in any conversations he has with the Republic?

The Front Bench should have said that.

I have been waiting for it to do so.

Order.

Everything concerned with this issue must be achieved by consent. That, understand, is the position of the Opposition, just as much as it is the position of the Government. Consent is not a bad way of moving forward.

Order. I shall call one more hon. Member. I cannot call every point of view on every question.

Will the Secretary of State accept from me—I have inside knowledge—that the present Taoiseach in the Republic is a man of great personal integrity who has shown great courage in the statements that he has made in trying to bring about a settlement in the North? If the Secretary of State cannot reach agreement with the present Taoiseach, it is highly unlikely that he will find agreement with any of his successors. Will he also take into account the important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) that the utmost information must be made available in the House on discussions that take place?

I am too old a hand at this job to believe that by giving praise to any person I necessarily help that person's case. I think that I had better refrain from answering the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has information as to how hunger strikers in prison in Northern Ireland are selected; and what pressures, if any, are applied to the prisoners concerned.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, there are now no prisoners on hunger strike in Northern Ireland.

Was there any feeling that some prisoners went on hunger strike as a result of pressure and intimidation? If that was the case, will my right hon. Friend be rigorous in seeking evidence so that those who applied pressure and intimidation of a highly inhuman sort are brought to justice?

I am aware that, at the time, stories to this effect were circulated. Quite honestly, I cannot confirm or deny the accuracy of those accounts. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that many of the participants were volunteers from within the prison rather than people who were under pressure from outside.

When the Secretary of State announced his package of concessions on prison rules and regulations on 6 October he justified them by saying that the package was designed to bring an end to violence. Does he think that he has been successful?

One learns rather quickly in Northern Ireland that nothing one says is necessarily carried out afterwards. I believe that the end of the hunger strike at least gives an opportunity for greater political development to take place, which was not possible while the hunger strike was going on.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of people unemployed in Northern Ireland on 26 October.

The total number of people registered as unemployed in Northern Ireland on 8 October 1981 was 112,224. This is the most recent figure available.

Is the Minister aware that those are terrible figures? They explain why there is such utter despair among men and women in Northern Ireland. What discussions is the new Secretary of State having to try to bring meaningful employment to Northern Ireland? Many hon. Members look to the new Secretary of State to tackle this issue with far more concern and vigour than, sadly, his predecessor did.

Clearly, the figures represent a very serious position. This is a matter of grave concern to the whole House.

Well, do something about it.

Some encouragement must be taken from the small drop in the total out of work of 1,700 compared with the previous month. Although the underlying trend is still bad, there are some bright spots. Construction has improved a little, and professional and scientific services have also shown some improvement. In regard to the hon. Gentleman's latter remarks, my right hon. Friend has made it clear that he attaches considerable importance to tackling the economic as well as the political problem, because he sees the close relationship between the two.

Will the Minister take note of the serious plight of the construction industry in Northern Ireland? Will he press for a substantial injection of funds for public sector housing in the Province?

There has been some benefit to the construction industry from the advance factory programme that I was able to announce recently. We are trying to ensure that we bring to the Province funds from the European Community, which will greatly help with housing.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the greatest contributors to future employment would be to revitalise American investment in Northern Ireland? Will his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have an early meeting with the United States ambassador in London? Will he also see that our propaganda and communications in the United States draw the attention of the Irish community there to the fact that they would contribute far more benefit to the whole of Ireland if they channelled their efforts into providing future employment instead of providing cash for arms?

My hon. Friend is right. We know that we must have investment from overseas, whether from America or any other place. That is why I spent three weeks of the recess in America and Japan trying to encourage investment. The fact is, though, that would-be investors are put off by their perception of the security situation. It has been my responsibility and that of our representatives in America—my right hon. Friend has made the point only recently to the United States ambassador—to try to ensure that a proper perception is held. We use the good performance of American companies in Northern Ireland as evidence of what achievements can be made.

Is the Minister aware that the statistics that he has just revealed are appalling? If the Liverpool-Belfast ferry link is allowed to close, hundreds of jobs on both sides of the Irish Sea will be lost. Will he take this opportunity to tell us whether the Government are committed to the continuation of this vital ferry link, and, if so——

Order. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating another hon. Gentleman's question—15—on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present situation within the Maze prison.

Most of the protesting prisoners are now wearing their own clothes, taking their daily exercise and going to the dining halls for their meals. The arrangement for a limited increase in the opportunities for association will take longer to implement, but the necessary work is proceeding.

I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his new appointment. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the courage and devotion to duty shown by the governor and all the prison officers within the Maze over this very difficult period is beyond praise? Is he satisfied that, by the concessions that we have made, we have not put the maintenance of security within the Maze prison in any jeopardy?

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said about the prison governor and prison officers, and I fully endorse it. I have had consultations, as has my noble Friend, with the prison governor and with the Prison Officers Association. We have taken their advice on every move that has been made. We are satisfied, and they are satisfied, that the moves that we have made are fully consistent with a liberal prison regime that still maintains the necessary disciplines, safety and security.

The Secretary of State will no doubt argue that the concessions were made for humanitarian reasons. Will he, therefore, tell the House that he will be persuading his colleagues to make these same concessions to prisoners on the mainland?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman could at least take some satisfaction from the fact that prisons in Northern Ireland are considerably ahead, in respect of the conditions that I have described, of those that exist on the mainland.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received regarding increased powers for local government in Northern Ireland.

In my initial contacts with the Northern Ireland political parties I have heard arguments for and against this proposition. Given the strong views expressed. I have every intention of treading cautiously on this issue.

Like many hon. Members, I wish my right hon. Friend well in the very difficult task that he has in Northern Ireland. However, would he not be taking more positive action by seeking to restore to Northern Ireland meaningful local government, rather than making statements about Ulster's problems being an international problem, when they are in fact problems for the United Kingdom alone, and granting to prisoners concessions that are not available in the rest of the United Kingdom?

That is rather ungenerous of my hon. Friend. If he understood a bit more about the Northern Ireland problem—

I do.

—he would not make the statements that he has made.

In view of my right hon. Friend's wise words at Blackpool, when he made it clear that no Northern Irish politician could expect to run anything more than a swimming pool or a refuse collection system, does he agree that the time has come to set up an independent inquiry into local government structure in the Province?

I am not certain that it is an independent inquiry that we need. We know what functions could be returned. What we have to gauge is whether that would be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. It would certainly be acceptable to some people, but it might cause many problems with others. That is why I have to tread carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to bring forward proposals for further devolution of power from non-elected boards to elected representatives.

The principal services run by non-elected boards in Northern Ireland are education, health and housing. Although I have no immediate plans to change the overall roles and functions of these boards, I shall be considering how to restore a greater degree of political responsibility to locally elected representatives.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. If political progress is more difficult at the level of a consultative council or enlarging the powers of local authorities, will he consider whether progress could be made by decreasing the number of appointees on the boards and increasing the elected element?

That is something that we shall be examining. The proportion of those who are elected is at present 40 per cent. on most of these boards, and the rest are appointed. Obviously, the more that we can move back to a system under which those who are democratically elected take the responsibility for these matters, the better it will be. However, one has to watch the whole time for the sectarianism that otherwise can creep in.

Will the Secretary of State accept from me, once again, that any attempt to give powers back to local authorities in Northern Ireland, as at present constituted, would bring about serious political turmoil? Has he noticed a very significant plus that has happened within the past week? The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), at a meeting of the Official Unionist Party last Friday evening, voted for devolved government in Northern Ireland. If the Secretary of State persists, he might win this battle.

I do not want to come between the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that the statement that has just been made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is entirely unfounded?

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has provided facilities for any members of local authorities in Great Britain to visit Northern Ireland during the past three months; and if he will list the members of local authorities concerned.

I and my predecessor have provided no facilities for any members of local authorities in Great Britain visiting Northern Ireland during the last three months.

As the leader of the Greater London Council appears to be trying to make County Hall, across the river, a sort of outpost of Irish Republican Army propaganda, does my right hon. Friend consider it a worthwhile idea—assuming, from his answer to me, that Mr. Livingstone has not been to Ulster recently—that Mr. Livingstone should visit Northern Ireland, but that his security ought to be provided by his friends rather than by the security forces?

Mr. Livingstone is perfectly at liberty to visit Northern Ireland if he wishes to do so. Perhaps he could come as a tourist. I do not think that I wish to comment further.

Would it be in order for any members of local authorities to go to Northern Ireland, in view of the suggestions emanating from Ministers on matters affecting local government, so that they could warn people there of the dangers inherent in taking away powers from local government in this country? Also, if the Secretary of State provides facilities, perhaps he would ensure that the Liverpool-Belfast ferry is maintained, because it would be cheaper transportation and there would, therefore, not be such a cost to the Secretary of State for the Environment.

With the hon. Gentleman's great experience of Clay Cross, I do not think that he needs me to give any advice to local representatives.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now initiate steps to eliminate special category status from Her Majesty's prisons in Northern Ireland.

No, Sir.

As the right hon. Gentleman is opposed in principle to special category status, as the Government have for many months resolutely maintained that position, and as there has been no understanding whatever as to the continuance of special category status in the Maze prison, what justification is there for a negative answer to my question?

As the House knows, special category status was phased out for new admissions, and that was the origin of the protests at the Maze prison. But my predecessors in this office have not found it appropriate to withdraw it from those prisoners for whom it was available at the time that they came into custody.

Why not?

I can see why they took that view, and I do not intend to make any statement of my own conclusion until I have had a chance to consider the matter fully. We must wait until the additional prison accommodation is available before we come to any final decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in setting up a representative Northern Ireland Council.

I do not intend to proceed with the establishment of the proposed Northern Ireland Council at present. But, in the interests of the economic and political future of Northern Ireland, I am convinced of the importance of restoring political responsibility to elected representatives there.

Does the Secretary of State realise that that answer will be welcomed? Will he consider implementing what he has just said by means of a return to some form of power-sharing in Northern Ireland?

It is too early to draw any conclusions. I am consulting a wide range of people, and when I am in a position to put forward proposals I shall put them to the House in the normal manner. I am absolutely certain that political advance is an essential prerequisite if we are to overcome both the security and the economic problems of Northern Ireland.

Whatever representative bodies are set up in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend confirm that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom just so long as the majority wishes it to do so?

As I have already said, this must always be a matter for the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. The legislation on this matter is clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations have been made to him by the company and others in respect of the P and O ferry between Belfast and Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

Representations have been made by the company to the effect that unless the Government will accept full commercial responsibility, P and O will cease to operate this service.

Further representations have been received from business and trade union interests, either seeking subsidy for the existing service or assurances that an alternative operator will be forthcoming.

I have had several meetings. After each of them I have issued a statement.

Does the Minister agree that only a small proportion of the vast sums paid by the Government to British Leyland, British Steel, the Post Office and other industries would save this vital link between Northern Ireland and the mainland? Will the Government therefore nationalise the ferry, if a company cannot be found to run it with a subsidy from the Government, and ensure that a service is provided that is equal to the standard of the service between England and the Continent?

It is against Government policy to subsidise commercial shipping. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if I reject out of hand his suggestion about nationalising the line. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that another company should be found to operate the service, my Department has been scouring for alternative operators. We hope that an alternative operator will be forthcoming in due course.

The Minister will have seen early-day motion 614, which has now been supported by 190 hon. Members from both sides of the Irish Sea. Is the Minister aware that if the ferry closes it will mean that an estimated 1,000 jobs will be lost in Belfast and Liverpool, two of the most devastated communities in the United Kingdom? Will his right hon. Friend hold urgent discussions before 11 November with the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has special responsibility for Merseyside, in view of his right hon. Friend's commitment to the future of the port of Liverpool?

The employment figure that I have been given is 480. I accept that adding this number to the potential number of unemployed poses a serious problem. However, I hope that an alternative operator will be forthcoming. That will reduce the number of people who would become unemployed, although I expect that the manning level will be somewhat lower than in the past.

Does the Minister agree that any difficulty or uncertainty attaching to the Belfast-Liverpool link increases the urgency and importance of developing a link between Warrenpoint and Holyhead or Liverpool?

The opening of alternative ferry services is a matter for commercial operators to decide for themselves, on the basis of what they see as being viable.

Will the Minister confer with his colleagues and the Prime Minister, to whom I wrote on the matter yesterday, and will he tell the House that if all else fails the Government will be prepared to meet the bill for running this important P and O service that is at risk?

It is not Government policy to subsidise ferry services, for the good reason, as P and O is fully aware, that we have a major international shipping fleet, and nothing is more damaging to our international fleet operations than subsidies. We cannot start that line ourselves and then expect to stand against it.

Is it not clear that the Government's attitude to this matter is a litmus test of whether they are serious about the attitude of the Secretary of State for the Environment and that of the Government towards help for Merseyside? If the Government are really serious about Merseyside, they will do everything possible to keep the line going. If they are not serious, and this is a cosmetic exercise, as is possible, obviously they will do nothing about it. The Government must answer that question. In my opinion, the line should be kept open. If it is not, all the Government's fine words will mean nothing.

The view of the P and O company is that there are long-term prospects for a viable service. That is why I hope to entice and encourage alternative operators to come forward. During the past seven years the number of passengers has doubled between Northern Ireland and the mainland, and during that time the number carried by P and O has gone down by 8,000, while the number carried by its competitor services has gone up by 422,000. We have to bear in mind the competition that is at work and take that into account.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

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

Will the Prime Minister describe to the House the efforts that she personally has made today to save British Leyland, its component industries and tens of thousands of jobs of skilled engineering workers throughout Britain?

There is not a great deal that I can add to what I said last Tuesday. It is the wish of the British Government that British Leyland should succeed. We have made that perfectly clear through the amount of taxpayers' money that has been made available this year and last year. It is not our intention to intervene in the negotiations. At present—and this is the new thing since Tuesday—ACAS is now involved in the negotiations, and I hope that those negotiations will be successful.

Has my right hon. Friend read of the reported refusal of the French Socialist Party to participate in the recent highly co-ordinated campaign against the siting of United States nuclear weapons in Europe, on the ground that it was sponsored by the Communist Party? Does she agree that it is highly dishonourable to seek to shelter under the American nuclear umbrella while refusing to allow United States nuclear weapons to be sited in this country?

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that to expect the United States to defend us with its home-based missiles and yet to refuse to have missiles based near our homes is totally and utterly dishonourable. I know that the French Government take a similar view about nuclear arms to the one that we take, and they have been most firm and robust about it.

Labour Members would be very happy to debate that extremely important matter, and the Gracious Speech may give us the chance to do so. However, I return to the immediate question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) and the urgent question about what is to be done to avert the catastrophe that could befall not only British Leyland, but British industry on a large scale. On Tuesday I asked the right hon. Lady to reflect on the matter. She says that ACAS is dealing with it, but all the latest indications are that it is not possible for ACAS to produce a solution. Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her grounds, and also tell us her view about the threatened liquidation of parts of British Leyland? Does she believe that that is a matter on which the Government should have no view?

Pay and industrial relations must be a matter for the company to decide in negotiation with the unions. Mediation is not the role of Government. It is the role of ACAS, and that is continuing at present.

On both matters, will the right hon. Lady undertake that if the discussions with ACAS break down the Government will do their duty and intervene to avoid this catastrophe? As the House is to prorogue on Friday, will she give an absolute undertaking that none of the assets of BL will be sold until the House has had the full opportunity to debate the mater in Government time and to vote on it? The industrial catastophe that can follow for the country is a matter for which the Government will have to take responsibility if the Prime Minister is not prepared to intervene on those two aspects.

It is reasonable to assume that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will keep in close touch about the possibility of liquidation. The Government are the main shareholder, and my right hon. Friend will be consulted about it.

The negotiations taking place at the moment are a matter for ACAS. I well remember that when the right hon. Gentleman was Leader of the House he was often asked about debates and statements on disputes. His frequent reply and that of his colleagues was that it was unwise to discuss these matters further when negotiations were at a very delicate stage. I refer him to his reply on 8 February 1979, when asked about a debate. He said:

The right hon. Lady is totally misinformed. We are not in the middle of the negotiations. Last night and this morning ACAS has been seeking a solution. All the indications are that its efforts will break down—[ Interruption. ] The Government have the same access to information as the Opposition, and all the indications are that the negotiations will break down. I ask the Prime Minister to give an absolute undertaking that if the ACAS negotiations break down the Government will be prepared to intervene to try to secure an industrial settlement. Further, I ask for an absolute undertaking that the projected sale of these assets will not be proceeded with until the House has the opportunity to pronounce upon it.

The right hon. Gentleman does not have very much confidence in the body which his Government set up. The negotiations in ACAS are continuing. I may say that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks are most unhelpful. Most Government supporters hope very much that the negotiations will be successful. It is the Government's wish—we have backed it with taxpayers' money—that British Leyland should succeed. The right hon. Gentleman is not helping what is a very difficult state of affairs. As major shareholder, the Government will be in touch with the board of British Leyland if there is any question of putting it into liquidation.

When my right hon. Friend opened her post today did she discover a supplementary rate demand from the GLC? Will she remind the ratepayers of London that it is proposed next year that rates will go up by 114 per cent. and that many Conservative hon. Members support the moves to curtail this crazy expenditure?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We see yet again what happens when Socialists get into Government. They are profligate with expenditure, regardless of the consequences of the rates and taxes that have to be paid by their electors.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 October.

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

Will the right hon. Lady cancel all her engagements for today and the next few days so that she can visit the North and see the devastation that her policies are causing up there? They are policies that have, unfortunately, kept the region at the top of the unemployment league every month since she assumed power. If the right hon. Lady comes to the North, will she visit Jarrow on Sunday? Is she aware that in that historic town she will see 100,000 people marching and demonstrating against her policies? Is it not appropriate that the town, which was murdered in the 1930s by her predecessors, should be the scene of a similar murder by her Government in the 1980s?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman is "No", but I am glad that he would find such a visit welcome. We discussed these matters yesterday. I did not hear any viable alternatives put forward by the Opposition.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Opposition Members who represent constituencies in the North-East never seem to hear good news? There is considerable business encouragement in the region already, engendered by the enterprise zones. Four large factories have been let recently in Hartlepool, and 40 of 200 acres allocated in the Team Valley have been taken up in the last two months alone. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people in the North-East have far too much common sense and are far too down to earth to be fooled by the diet of pessimism prescribed by Labour Members?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are a good number of excellent contracts going to the North. There is an increase in engineering orders. I think that many people in the North realise that some of the measures that have been taken should have been taken many years ago.

Although I accept that it would be wrong for the Government to become directly involved in the negotiations between the management and work force of BL, may I ask whether the Prime Minister agrees that the consequences of the closure of BL would be much greater, possibly, than have been anticipated so far? Does she accept that many major firms have been teetering on the brink for many months and that they may be tipped over it by the closure of BL?

I can think of someone who was teetering on the brink of the Labour Party for a long time.

Will the right hon. Lady consult her Cabinet colleagues and the Governor of the Bank of England about the possible consequences for banking and industry and draw them to the attention of both management and workers?

For many of the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman, we hope that the negotiations will be successful. However, it is not the Government's role to conduct industrial negotiations.

I have just received a communication from one of my constituents, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can suggest a reply. He asks for my advice about what he should do with the supplementary rate demand that he has received from the Humberside county council. He asks whether he should defy the county council and not pay the supplementary rate and what the Government intend to do about it. Can my right hon. Friend suggest what I should reply to him?

My hon. Friend knows that I would never advise anyone to defy the law. People must act in accordance with the law, however much they dislike it. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to campaign against a council that is profligate with ratepayers' money. Perhaps he will inform his constituent that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment hopes to introduce legislation to restrict supplementary rates in future.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 October.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is 14 years since we had an inflation rate comparable with, or lower than, those of the majority of our major industrial competitors, such as we have today? Would it not be the height of folly to abandon the battle against inflation, as she is urged to do by a great many people, including the Leader of the Opposition, just when there is a sign that the nation can win the battle?

If we abandoned the battle now there would be no hope of our ever rivalling our main industrial competitors again. If we continue with our strategy there is a chance that we can break through to industrial success and be as successful with our industrial orders as our competitors are.

Reverting to an earlier supplementary question on the subject of theatre nuclear weapons, will the right hon. Lady contemplate where that intended theatre lies? Will each European Government be free to choose or to veto the push on that final button by that incoherent cretin, President Reagan?

I greatly deplore the discourtesy and total futility of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Answer the question.

They do not help when the security of Europe depends upon the support of the United States of America. With regard to the theatre of theatre nuclear weapons, the SS20s are targeted on Europe, including this country.

Will my right hon. Friend encourage her Cabinet colleagues to give currency throughout the country to the point made in an excellent speech yesterday by the Secretary of State for Industry to the effect that Labour's policy of withdrawal from the Common Market is likely to lead to the loss of 5 million jobs within two years?

Labour's policy of withdrawal from the EEC would be devastating for jobs and could be devastating for all hope of getting inward investment into areas that need more work.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not intervene during Question Time, as is your wish. Is it not out of order, and has it not always been out of order, to refer in the House discourteously to other Heads of State?

Order. The hon. Gentleman is correct. That is out of order. However, because the Prime Minister replied immediately, I thought that the whole House understood, including the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), that we refer politely to the Heads of all States, as we expect them to refer politely to our Head of State.

I am song if I have offended against one of the traditions of the House, but when the lives of every person in this country depend on such people, I am entitled to make that point.

Order. In the House, no one is entitled to speak discourteously of the Head of another State, particularly a friendly State. That has been our rule for centuries.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the noise and acrimony among various groups of Socialists on the Opposition Benches, which looks as if it is likely to increase in the months ahead, have you any plans to lay down guidelines so that we can at least hear what they are saying?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the reference in "Erskine May" about pejorative references to Heads of State first came into "Erskine May" because of references to Herr Hitler in the House in 1936? Is it not time that we looked at that reference, because surely it should be the right of any hon. Member to draw attention to the dangers from other countries, as Winston Churchill did in the years before the war?

Order. I am not seeking in any way to stop anyone's argument, but no one's argument is advanced by abuse. That applies particularly when someone is not able to reply for himself in the House.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw attention to the fact that, on occasions, abusive references have been made to people such as President Amin—properly, in my view? Can you recall any instances when an attempt has been made to stop an hon. Member from making such references, as happened when my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) referred to President Reagan?

As it happens, the hon. Gentleman is right. Disrespectful remarks were passed about President Amin, which I did not hear at the time.