asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will explain the weighted majority procedure he intends to introduce in his proposals for a devolved Government in Northern Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his proposals for the constitutional future of Northern Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statment about his timetable for futher constitutional development in Northern Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to publish his proposals on the future governmental structure of Northern Ireland.

My talks with the Northern Ireland political parties are continuing. I have discussed various options with them. I am convinced that there is now an overwhelming desire for a move towards greater politic al responsibility to be exercised within the Province. My task is to seek to narrow the area of difference between the parties so that a transfer of power is not only desirable but effective. In due course I hope to bring firm proposals before the House.

Bearing in mind what has been said about a weighted majority, does the Secretary of State see that in the context of a percentage of the total membership of any such Assembly, or as a percentage of those who would vote on any particular issue? Considering how difficult it would be to get a 70 per cent. consensus on any issue in this House or any other elected Assembly, is he not in danger of putting an instrumental barrier before those elected to an Assembly in Northern Ireland? Would it not, therefore, be better if he put the onus on the wreckers, who will not want to make any progress in such an Assembly, to get their troops into the lobby against progress rather than putting it on those who may be trying to get an agreement?

These are all matters that I am considering and, of course, one of those matters is the weighted majority. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's views on turning the onus round the other way. However, it is too early to draw any definite conclusions from the talks that I have had.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Official Unionist Party remains committed to the local exercise of power and supports the principle of devolution?

Yes, Sir.

Has the Secretary of State noticed that in my hon. Friend's original question he used the words "devolved Government" and not "devolved Assembly"? Is the Secretary of State aware that if disaster is to be avoided, any such Government must have real power from day one? Is he further aware that a powerless Assembly would merely create and generate friction between the political parties in Northern Ireland and inflict further damage on the economy of Northern Ireland?

These are all matters for further discussion, but I am not of the opinion that it is necessary for all the powers of a devolved Government to be exercised from day one, although the power should be available from day one for transfer if the circumstances that the Government consider necessary are met.

Whatever the details of my right hon. Friend's proposal, is not the lasting lesson of what has happened over the past 10 tragic years that no lasting solution is possible within Northern Ireland so long as there is direct rule? In itself, is that not a justification for my right hon. Friend's initiatives?

I am absolutely convinced that there is a growing desire in Northern Ireland for the establishment of responsible political institutions and that the long-term stability that they might provide can offer a sound basis for tackling Northern Ireland's many political, economic and security problems. I am anxious to build on that desire, as are the people of Northern Ireland.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I have probably heard on five occasions the words "overwhelming desire" and "growing desire" for an initiative in Northern Ireland. All that I can do, I think, is to counsel caution. Another failure would take us back behind the point where matters now stand. I would prefer to see the Secretary of State get things right rather than that he should think that he has to come to the House now with an initiative. It would be better if he waited until the time was absolutely right.

I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman says. Anyone who embarks upon a programme of trying to devolve responsibility back to Northern Ireland is bound to find the going difficult and perhaps controversial. At the same time, I believe that the returning of political responsibility to the Province can do more than anything to help both the security situation and the serious economic plight that the people of Northern Ireland face.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that if he adopts the British practice of a weighted majority he will ensure that it is a fixed weighted majority and not a weighted majority with which he can tamper after the Assembly has voted in that particular strength? In that way the Assembly will know the criteria for success before the game starts.

This is obviously a matter to which I shall give great consideration. I am, however, encouraged by the sort of questions I have been asked today and by the interest that has been shown in the whole idea of a devolved Assembly and the weighted majority.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the full report of the Northern Ireland higher education review group will be published.

I expect that the final report of the higher education review group will be published in March.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the strength of the opposition that he has aroused within the minority community following the publication of his proposals to close the two teacher training colleges at St. Mary's and St. Joseph's? May I remind the hon. Gentleman that not even the previous Stormont regime was as discriminatory as those proposals? Will he give an assurance that nothing will be done to finalise the proposals until he has had further discussions with representatives of the community involved?

The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question relates to the interim report of the review group, about which a question appears later on the Order Paper. I am aware of the strength of feeling that has been aroused, based, at least in part, I believe, on a misunderstanding. I am holding conversations and discussions with all the providers of teacher training in Northern Ireland. I hope, obviously, to be able to proceed by agreement.

Will the hon. Gentleman ignore the scurrilous campaign, particularly the chapel collection of signatures, including those of youngsters of 16 and under, organised by the Roman Catholic Church, which annoyed many members of that faith? Will the Government get rid of the last vestiges of sectarianism in higher education by abolishing all three teacher training colleges and placing the education of potential teachers in the universities? Will the Government then move to end the religious apartheid maintained at public expense in schools in Ulster, which continues to divide the community.

I have listened to all responsible expressions of opinion on the subject. The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "No". The overwhelming principle throughout the United Kingdom is that the wishes of parents should be respected in regard to the schooling of their children. The existence of Catholic education demands the provision of a suitable number of Catholic-trained teachers.

Will the Minister accept that the Catholic Church has behind it centuries of experience of Catholic teaching? Is it not, therefore, highly unlikely that the Catholic Church has misunderstood any of the Minister's proposals? In fact, there is only too great an awareness of what the Government's proposals may mean. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that any attempt unduly to discriminate against the two colleges will provoke a war in Northern Ireland, which this or any other Government cannot win?

There is no intention to discriminate against these colleges. Let me give an example of the misunderstanding that has arisen. It has been widely reported that the Government intend to close the colleges. That was not suggested by Sir Henry Chilver and I have certainly not suggested it. The idea is that the colleges might amalgamate and move to a site common with the other teacher training college in Belfast. They would preserve their autonomy and their independence.

Ross asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the prospects of fresh orders of ships and engines for Harland and Wolff.

Harland and Wolff is currently pursuing a number of possible ship and engine orders in extremely difficult market conditions. It remains my hope, however, that its efforts to secure new orders on acceptable terms will be successful.

I am conscious of the personal efforts of the Secretary of State, which I know are appreciated, to obtain orders for Harland and Wolff. Is he aware that relationships between Harland and Wolff and British Shipbuilders are not perhaps as close as one might wish? While British Shipbuilders seem to have a fairly full order book, is it not possible that some of those orders might be directed towards Harland and Wolff?

There is certainly a working relationship between British Shipbuilders and Harland and Wolff. I am not sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman is right in what he says. The ships built by Harland and Wolff are essentially the larger, simple type, while those built by British Shipbuilders tend to be below the 64,000 tonnes mark. It would be relatively inefficient for Harland and Wolff to go for the same sort of ships as those for which British Shipbuilders has gained orders in the last year or two.

In view of the parlous position of those employed in the steel works and engine works of Harland and Wolff, is the Minister yet in a position to say that the British Steel bulk carrier order might be placed with Harland and Wolff?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman only that negotiations are continuing. I am very well aware, as is my right hon. Friend, of the importance of Harland and Wolff winning this order in the near future.

As the P and 0 order went to Finland, will the Minister explain why efforts were not made by his Department, on behalf of Harland and Wolff, to transfer work from British Shipbuilders so that the P and 0 ship could have been built in England and employment provided for Harland and Wolff?

I understand that Harland and Wolff felt it could not meet the delivery date required. Secondly, the balance of trades involved in the P and 0 vessel was out of tune with its present manning. Harland and Wolff made the offer to British Shipbuilders that it would carry out subcontract work if that were available. In the event, it was not.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the progress being made by the United States in halting the illegal supply of arms to the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland.

Arms smuggled from the United States have been used frequently in terrorist attacks, including murders of members of the security forces and civilians. The United States Government are well aware of that and continue to take energetic measures to prevent such traffic. I hope that recent publicity will have brought the same point home to those who make financial contributions to terrorists' front organisations.

Has the Minister yet had a chance to consider the revelations made in the Granada Television "World in Action" programme screened last Monday? Will he take this opportunity to urge people in the Irish Catholic community in the United States to desist from giving funds to Noraid on the basis that much of this money is used for illegal arms smuggling and that these arms, in turn, are being used for the murder of innocent people in Northern Ireland?

Yes. I am aware of the programme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the New York district court has ruled that the so-called Noraid organisation is linked directly to the Provisional IRA and should be registered as such. I should like to take this opportunity to appeal from the Government Dispatch Box to everyone in the United States who is ever tempted to give financial or other aid to this organisation to realise what they are doing and to reflect perhaps on the distress that has been caused to the victims of those who have used guns purchased with that money? They should recognise that Noraid might be better called "terror aid" or "murder aid".

Does my hon. Friend think it ironic that it is possible for the United States to supply this country with Trident but will not allow the sale of small arms and hand guns to be used by the RUC to combat the terrorism to which he refers?

I see the logic of my hon. Friend's question. The Government have made it clear to the Government of the United States that they utterly deplore the decision to suspend the licence to export weapons to the RUC. We would expect our allies and our friends to make available to us weapons for personal protection. I must also stress to the House, however, that the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland is perfectly satisfied with the equipment that his men carry at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent his policy that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom until the people of Northern Ireland choose otherwise, also includes the intention to encourage the permanent union of Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

The Government are committed to the principle of self-determination as provided for in section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The permanence of the union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland remains a matter for the people of Northern Ireland, Her Majesty's Government and this Parliament.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Government were to say that they wanted Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom in perpetuity, that would be good news for the law abiding Unionist majority, Protestant and Catholic alike, would be bad news for the minority men of violence who believe that they are embarked on a war of attrition and that, with one last kick, a British Government will concede to them unification with the Irish Republic? If that is the case, will he state now that he wishes Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom in perpetuity?

This is a difficult and delicate subject. I shall say three things. First, consent and self-determination are the important factors. Secondly, we should seek to show that there are great advantages for all the people of Northern Ireland in remaining part of the United Kingdom. Thirdly, we have to recognise that there is a problem of identity for parts of the minority community, and if we can recognise that problem sensibly I believe that all the people of Northern Ireland will wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.

Does the Minister agree with the verdict of history that it was the men of violence who took Ireland over a long time ago? That frame of mind is still perpetuated in certain Conservative Members. Does the Minister realise that, ultimately, there is bound to be a move and that the Labour Party's present policy is for the ultimate unity of Ireland? Those people, like the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who say the kind of things that he said are really saying that, no matter how the population of Northern Ireland vote, they want Northern Ireland to stay with Britain for all time.

I have nothing to add to my supplementary reply to my hon. Friend except to say that I believe that the sort of remarks that go backwards and forwards across the House about the history of the island of Ireland do much more harm than good.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures for the Province.

The total number of people registered as unemployed in Northern Ireland on 13 February was 112,209; 19.5 per cent. of all employees. The small fall which this figure represents in the numbers out of work is welcome but the underlying trend is still adverse and the immediate likelihood for an improvement in the situation is not good.

Are these not disgraceful figures? What positive plans do the Government have to reduce unemployment in Northern Ireland, particularly among young people? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and her policies are not helping in this regard?

The figures are unacceptable and I have said so before in the House. We can be a little encouraged by the improvement in the trend. Unemployment is not as bad as it has been in the past year. The hon. Gentleman refers particularly to the young unemployed. It was for them that we announced, and intend to introduce this autumn, the youth training programme with its comprehensive provision of training opportunities for all:16-year-olds and 17-year-olds without jobs. With regard to the Government's overall policy for Northern Ireland, our concern is evidenced by the £90 million of extra money provided beyond that planned for the coming financial year.

Since these terrible figures are the result of 10 years of spending hundreds of millions of pounds, is it not time that we asked ourselves whether we are spending this money wisely?

The hon. Gentleman should not put one and one together and make three. He is correct in saying that large sums of money have been poured into Northern Ireland over the past decade and previously. However, the main reason for the present high level of unemployment is the world recession. With regard to his positive suggestion, yes, we have to continue to examine whether the limited resources available are being used as efficiently as possible. I shall always welcome any suggestions about that from the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Will my hon. Friend give further considered understanding to the question raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), who asked whether it would not be a good thing if British Shipbuilders would transfer some of its work to Harland and Wolff—which would provide much needed employment in Northern Ireland—and if the P and 0 order had gone to British Shipbuilders? Will my hon. Friend give that matter his full consideration because such a move would have guaranteed many hundreds of jobs at Harland and Wolff and would have been a great advantage to the Province?

That is interfering in the private sector.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend has no shipbuilding capacity in his constituency. His suggestion would not be particularly welcome in Newcastle and other places around our coast where ships are built in British Shipbuilders' yards. I do not think that the intervention that he asked for would be justified, because it would be at the expense of jobs in British Shipbuilders.

No.

The type of work for which Harland and Wolff is best suited is not the sort of work that British Shipbuilders has on order at the moment.

Does the Minister agree that the figure of 112,000 is not the true figure of unemployment in Northern Ireland? The trade unions and those associated with them are only too well aware that thousands of people do not sign the unemployed register because they do not qualify for benefit. Therefore, the figure of 112,000 is the absolute minimum. Has the Minister been advised by his economic advisers in Northern Ireland that over the next five years the figure for unemployment there is liable to reach 130,000? Are there any positive steps that he can take to prevent that happening?

There are people who do not work but who are not registered as unemployed, but it has been accepted for many years that the only way to examine unemployment figures and compare previous experience is to take those who are registered. I am not prepared to react to the hon. Gentleman's forecast except to remind him that there were many gloomy forecasts for this time of year—125,000 unemployed or more was forecast by consultants. I am glad to say that, however bad the figures, they have fallen considerably short of that gloomy forecast.

Does my hon. Friend agree that investment is one way of reducing unemployment, and since the Republic of Ireland seems to be more successful in attracting investment than Northern Ireland, is he satisfied that the investment incentives offered in the North are at least comparable with those in the South?

Investment incentives are not identical and there are limitations on what we can offer in Northern Ireland, particularly in the way of special tax incentives that would not necessarily be available in the United Kingdom. However, an independent survey suggested that the whole package of incentives available in Northern Ireland is among the best in Europe. We must take confidence from that. The main single reason why we do not have the investment that we need in Northern Ireland is the perception among would-be investors of the security problems and the general lack of stability in the Province.

Does the Minister realise that what he has said today will be considered by the people of Northern Ireland to be pathetic platitudes? Everybody in Northern Ireland recognises that the base of the Northern Ireland economy is collapsing beyond repair. Even the CBI asked for more public money to be put into construction and new technology. To talk of £90 million put back in when the Government took so much away previously is nonsense. When will the Government put effective public money in, even along the lines advocated by the Northern Ireland CBI?

I cannot see that £90 million, additional to what is already being spent, is in any way pathetic. The hon. Gentleman should realise that the expenditure per head in Northern Ireland is much greater than in any other region in the United Kingdom. That is a reflection of the Government's concern about the difficulties.

F. Bennett asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set up an inquiry into the the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.

I have at present no plans to do so, but I shall give careful consideration to this possibility before the House next debates the renewal of the legislation.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that we must renew the legislation soon and that there is a grave danger of emergency provisions drifting into permanent provisions? Does he accept that there is a good case for setting up an inquiry to look particularly into the way in which some aspects of the legislation can be phased out?

I shall consider these matters ahead of the next renewal of the Act. However, the fact remains that violence and the terrorist capacity for violence are sufficiently high to require special measures, and I shall not give up those measures until violence is over and done with.

I am glad to know that at least the Government are thinking about the matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is nine years since the Act came into force, that it was reviewed about two years after that, and that it was about another two and a half years before the amendments reached the statute book as a result of that review? In view of that time scale, surely there is a strong case for another review?

I know that the desire for an inquiry is shared by hon. Members, and that is why I am having an inquiry into the operation of the Act. We shall have to see how we get on.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the reorganisation of teacher training in Northern Ireland.

Biggs-Davison asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the future of teacher training colleges in Northern Ireland.

Discussions are continuing with the major interests involved in teacher education provision in Northern Ireland. No final decisions have yet been taken.

Can the Minister say when he next intends to meet the interests involved? Is he aware that in Catholic teacher training colleges there is grave concern because Northern Ireland Catholic teachers are not being accorded equal parity with teachers elsewhere in the United Kingdom in terms of places at colleges and provision? Is he also aware that any idea that he may have of moving any of the sites out of West Belfast nearer to the university would have adverse effects on employment prospects in West Belfast—a matter that has caused considerable concern?

I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said. I am in continuous touch with all the providers, both in correspondence and at meetings, and I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said, as well as what they say to me, before reaching any final decisions.

Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts has already decided to investigate higher as well as other education provision in Northern Ireland, for which it is responsible to this House? Does he accept as a general principle that higher education, including teacher education, in Northern Ireland should be seen as a whole, wherever the sites at which that higher education is provided happen to be?

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister aware of the prominent part played by the New University of Ulster in providing non-sectarian teacher training for Roman Catholics., tend will he ensure that that university continues to operate in its present form?

It would be wrong for me to be drawn on what conclusions the review group may draw in its main report. We shall have to await the outcome.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to meet the representatives of the new Government of the Republic of Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will arrange to meet the Taoiseach to discuss matters of mutual concern.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for a meeting with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to meet the r ew Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

I have no immediate plans to do so, but I look forward to continuing regular contact with Members of the Irish Government.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is in the interests of everyone concerned with Ireland and Northern Ireland that the:3e conversations, which we understand have so far proved useful, should continue? As these conversations will mean ultimate peace in Northern Ireland, will he assure us that he will not allow the sectarian voices that have been raised in the North against such discussions to hamper the continuation of this series of discussions?

I do not want to comment on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. In answer to the first part, it is perfectly right that consultations should continue on a variety of subjects between the Government of the United Kingdom and that of the Republic.

Will the Secretary of State arrange an early meeting with the Taoiseach, whoever that may be after the Dail meets on 9 March, to discuss the growing importance of cross-border co-operation between all the people of Ireland, irrespective of religious differences, and irrespective of whether they are in the North or the South? Will he also take the opportunity to remind the Taoiseach that the Labour Party's official policy is now to work towards a peaceful reunification of Ireland and that the next Labour Government will be expected to carry out that policy, instead of collaborating with the Tories to continue the tragic partition of Ireland, which has been the cause of much of the trouble to date?

No, I shall not take an opportunity to remind the Taoiseach of what the hon. Gentleman said.

When the Secretary of State meets the Prime Minister of the Irish Free State—no doubt it will be Mr. Haughey, whose IRA sympathies are well known—will he deliver a blunt, thundering protest about the way in which the courts there can send Eireann citizens convicted of thievery and other criminal activities to the United Kingdom, but adamantly refuse to extradite Provisional IRA terrorists who are wanted for atrocities committed in the United Kingdom—murder and mutilation? Is it not high time that the Eireann Government were told to take action in this respect?

The Government of the Republic are well aware of the views of the United Kingdom Government on the matters that the hon. Gentleman mentions. However, I believe that the co-operation being shown by the Government of the Republic, and particularly by the Garda along the border, has resulted in a considerable improvement in the security situation, which the whole House will welcome.

Does the Secretary of State feel that there is now any point in Her Majesty's Government continuing to meet Dublin Prime Ministers who come and go at an alarming rate as a result of the instabillity created by the proportional representation system of voting? Would it not be a good idea to remove this debate from all parts of the British Isles?

It is not for me to comment on what happens to the leaders of other parties.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not good enough for a judge in the Irish Republic to give a person another chance by sending him to the United Kingdom? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is quite unfair to British taxpayers for us to take in citizens of other countries so that they may enjoy the welfare benefits that the British taxpayers have paid for, when the persons who receive those benefits have not paid a penny towards them?

In my view, it was not a very wise decision.

Whoever becomes the Taoiseach—and I have had discussions with all the persons involved—is the Secretary of State aware that none of the contenders thinks that the unification of Ireland can come about in any way other than peacefully and with the consent of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland? Does the Secretary of State accept that they are fully aware of our position as an Opposition and that we shall work towards the peaceful unification of Ireland, with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, and that they are perfectly happy to work towards that peaceful solution with us?

The right hon. Gentleman has put the matter very well, and I hope that his right hon. and hon. Friends were listening to him.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to announce a decision on the extension of the less-favoured areas.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is at present considering with his colleagues the case for extending the less-favoured areas throughout the United Kingdom, which might be submitted to the European Commission in the near future, and the implications for so doing.

Has it not taken a very long time to reach this stage? When can we expect the less-favoured areas to be extended, or is it that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food cannot prise the money out of the Treasury to pay for the necessary extension?

I agree that it is taking a long time. We in Northern Ireland have had to wait for the rest of the United Kingdom to come to some arrangement. However, it is not a foregone conclusion that any extension will be accepted by the Commission, so it is essential that the best case should be prepared. It is taking longer than we expected.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the proposed Northern Ireland Housing Executive's rent increases due in April.

I have received representations from a number of bodies, including hon. Members, political parties, tenants' groups and district councils. In the main they have, naturally, been opposed to the increases due from 5 April 1982.

Does the Minister agree that the proposed increase of 22 per cent. is excessive, falling as it does on some of the poorest people in the United Kingdom? Does he further agree that it is wrong in principle that such a high increase should be used as a basis for financing further housing development?

I do not agree that it is excessive. It is less than the increase in either Scotland or England and Wales. Half the tenants will not pay the full increase, anyway. A man and wife with two children, with an income of up to £6,000 a year, paying an average rent of £15 a week, will receive a rebate. The total rent roll of the executive will be less than the amount spent on repairs, maintenance and modernisation by rehabilitation of the existing stock. After those payments have been met, there will be nothing left to cover management or loan charges.

Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that most of the Housing Executive's property in Northern Ireland is in areas of high poverty and social deprivation, such as West Belfast? Does he accept that there is tremendous poverty in four of the worst estates, not only in Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom—but in Europe—Ballymurphy, Divis Towers, Turf Lodge and Highfield? The tenants on those estates will be asked to pay a 22 per cent. increase so that more houses can be built in the more affluent areas of Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that that is a terrible position?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that the increase in the rents will be spent on building more houses in the affluent areas of Northern Ireland. Half of the new building will be in Belfast. In any case, a large proportion of the tenants will receive aid in one form or another.

Has the Minister forgotten that, in 1980, there was an increase of about 26 per cent., in 1981 of 11 per cent. and now an increase is proposed of 22 per cent.? Does he realise that people have told me that it is not a case of going back to the 1930s but to the 1900s, when people on low income, without supplementary benefits, could not meet their bills?

Tenants with an income of up to £6,000 a year, with two children, and paying the average rent can receive assistance in the form of rebates on their housing costs. That covers the hon. Gentleman's point adequately.

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

Since I last answered questions on 28 January two civilians have died in incidents relevant to this question. In one of them a young man died in a car joyriding incident, and in this case a soldier was seriously injured by the car. The other person who died, Mr. McKeague, was shot dead in his shop. The Irish National Liberation Army has claimed responsibility. A number of people have also been injured, several of them as a result of so-called punishment shootings by terrorist organisations. There were 17 terrorist bombing incidents, two of which caused widespread damage to two hotels. The House will also be aware that the collier "St. Bedan" was boarded and sunk by armed men in Lough Foyle on the night of 22 February. The Provisional IRA has since claimed responsibility.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there has been a restoration of confidence in the border region of Fermanagh and County Tyrone resulting mainly from the vigilance of the troops in forward positions on the frontier? Will he convey our congratulations and appreciation to the security forces, and will he encourage them to maintain their present high level of activity?

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says and I shall convey that message. However, I do not wish anyone in the House or elsewhere to think that the struggle and the problems are over, because they are very real. We must have increased and eternal vigilance from the whole population if we are to keep on top of the position.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the warning given yesterday by the RUC that the IRA is about to launch a new campaign of murder? Instead of waiting until an atrocity is committed, will the Secretary of State ensure that enough troops are brought into the Province now, including members of the SAS, to contend with such a threat from the evil men of the Provisional IRA?

The SAS is presently in Northern Ireland. If the GOC believes that he needs extra troops he has only to ask for them. However, the increasing strength of the RUC, the ability of the intelligence forces to gain information and the willingness of the public to co-operate with the police is perhaps the best defence against what is happening.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 25 February.

This morning I presided at a meeting with 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.

Is the Prime Minister aware that last week in many Western capitals young Iranians went on hunger strike outside United Nations offices as a demonstration to draw attention to the barbarities of the Iranian regime? Is she aware that last year between 4,000 and 8,000 people were executed in Iran, many without trial, and that the figure included children and pregnant women? Is she aware that there are thousands of others in jail, again without trial? What action has she taken, or is proposing to take, at the United Nations and elsewhere to bring pressure to bear so that those appalling cruelties can be halted?

I agree that they are appalling cruelties. We have known about them and have seen them on television. Everyone finds them totally repugnant, but unfortunately it is not within our power, either separately or within the United Nations, to bring them to an end.

Will my right hon. Friend, in order to encourage democratic institutions in Britain, consider and perhaps deplore the decision of the Trades Union Congress to expel any organisation that uses State aid to carry out secret ballots? Does she realise that the trade unions originally considered that they could not have secret ballots because they did not have sufficient funds, but now that they have the funds they have found another argument for not doing so?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is appalling and dogmatic to refuse State aid, knowing full well that it would be a way of reaching a decision democratically. I hope that the trade unions are not afraid to do that.

Has the right hon. Lady had an opportunity this morning to study what has happened on the Stock Exchange about the shares of Amersham International? Does she not think it a scandal that State assets should be put on the market in such a manner and sold at knock-down prices? Can she tell us who advised the Government to conduct the proceedings in that way?

It is easy in retrospectߞ[Hon. Members: "Oh!"]—to make a judgment about the price. The offer price of 142p was decided over two weeks ago. It was chosen on the firm advice of professional City advisers—[Hon. Members: "Who?"]—and was believed to be the highest price at which the whole company could successfully be offered. Some people have said that the shares should have been offered by tender. However, if that had been done, small investors, especially those who work for the company, would not have had a chance to take up the shares.

Is it not the case that something similar, if not quite so scandalous, happened with the sale of Cable and Wireless not very long ago? If the right hon. Lady's defence of the position is that it is easy to test such matters only in retrospect, what precautions will she take if she proceeds with the sale of BNOC? Will the advice come from the same quarter?

One takes the best possible professional advice—[Interruption.] It would have been possible to put the company on the market at a price at which it would not have sold. It is different selling the whole company from selling small numbers of shares. It is possible to consider tender. In future, we shall take professional advice and also consider tender. I emphasise yet again to the right hon. Gentleman that we are anxious for employees and small investors to have the chance to purchase shares. With the method that we have chosen they can do so, but with the tender method they could not do so.

Is it not the case that some of the right hon. Lady's advisers who gave her the wrong advice have made at least £1 million out of it?

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not making any accusation in the House that he would not make outside.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports in today's press about the possibility of the Argentine taking military action against the Falkland Islands? Can she assure the House and the country that the Falkland Islands will receive full support and military protection from Her Majesty's Government? Furthermore, can she assure the House that she will again consider withdrawing HMS "Endurance" from station and leaving her in the area until a suitable substitute can be provided?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have put the position to the people of the Falkland Islands and we have said that their future is wholly a matter for their decision. In the meantime, we shall do our level best to meet the decisions of the Falkland Islanders.

Has the Prime Minister had time to study the report of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which states that unless policies are changed unemployment will steadily rise over the next year? As the Prime Minister has commented on the Budget outside the House, will she tell us that because there has been a fall in oil revenues she is excluding any stimulus to demand and output in the forthcoming Budget?

The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for details of the Budget. He will not have long to wait. The Budget is coming up soon. There are a number of economic forecasts. The Liverpool forecast is optimistic; the Cambridge forecast is pessimistic; the National Institute forecast foresees recovery this year and falling inflation.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the speech made yesterday in Glasgow by Mr. Roy Jenkins, in which he fully accepted the rights of parents to opt out of the State school system? Does she agree that that is a little at variance with the anti-private education policy of his colleague, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams)? Do not Mr. Jenkins' views have something to do with the fact that there are many private schools in Hillhead? Is not the alliance being all things to all men?

I believe that that shows that Mr. Jenkins' views correspond more closely with my views than with those of one of his colleagues. That shows the fragile nature of the coalition that calls itself the Social Democratic Party.

Has the Prime Minister had time to consider whether she is still a fan of Sir Freddie Laker? Is she prepared to transfer her support to the unfortunate passengers who, in the summer, will be obliged to pay a surcharge on their fares as a result of Sir Freddie Laker's irresponsible behaviour, and particularly to the creditors, many of whom will face ruin as a result of his depredations?

I do not need to reconsider. Freddie Laker, whatever his difficulties now, brought travel and the possibility of travel to many millions of people——

What about Ken Livingstone?

Sir Freddie Laker brought down the fares of other airlines, which gave many of our constituents, including those of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis), possibilities of travel and of seeing their families that they would never have had before.

Will my right hon. Friend take an opportunity to express today the concern that we all feel she must share with many hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Government find it necessary to sell one of the most powerful ships in the Royal Navy, the "Invincible"? Does she agree that, apart from the money, the only agreeable feature about the sale is that the ship is to go to such a firm, strong and staunch Commonwealth ally as Australia?

Naturally I know my hon. and learned Friend's concern. We always wish to have more defence ships and equipment than we can afford. As my hon. and learned Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced the decision that we could keep only two of those ships. Therefore, we have decided to try to sell the third to a close and staunch ally. Because we were going to take that decision, my right hon. Friend was able to place more shipping orders than would otherwise have been possible. This year he has placed orders for £410 million worth of new warships with British Shipbuilders.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 25 February.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that at this moment there is a lobby of young people taking part in the youth opportunities programme and that they are gravely dissatisfied? Is she also aware that on ITV news at lunchtime the Secretary of State for Employment—it should be "Unemployment"—in his usual callous way, deplored the fact that these desperate young people had come down here at all and attributed their initiative to other people having stirred them up? Does she agree that unless the Government's policies are changed radically—some Members of her own party want that to happen—there will be masses more unemployment and more young people being used as cheap labour in YOP instead of being given proper jobs?

Those people are not being used as cheap labour. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, they are being given the opportunity of some training and experience that otherwise they would not get. I note how critical the hon. Gentleman is of the scheme that was started by his own Government and which is being continued by this Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at a recent council meeting in Southampton seven Conservative councillors were barred from voting on a planning decision for a private hospital because they were members of the British United Provident Association? Is that not a dangerous precedent? Should not our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment hold an inquiry into the whole sordid mess?

I cannot say whether that would come under the heading of having an interest, but I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I emphasise that people have the right to private medicine as much as they have the right to private education——

If they have the money.

Those people should not be denied the possibility of spending their money on education and health in preference to spending it on cigarettes, alcohol and various other things.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that her speech to engineering employers about the Budget caused much justified alarm and the feeling that there would be no change in the present disastrous economic policies? Does the right hon. Lady know that in May 1979 unemployment in the West Midlands was 5 per cent., Ind that now it is over 15 per cent.? How can she explain the tragedy and devastation that has come to the region except by saying that it has been brought about by her economic policies?

There are a number of reasons. First, there has been considerable overmanning in industry, as I said in that speech. The hidden unemployment from industry is now on the unemployment register. However, industries can now compete. Secondly, a great deal of unemployment has been caused by the world recession. There are 10 million unemployed throughout Europe. Thirdly, due to the Government's policies, management has been given the responsibility and authority to manage and to obtain orders. The export performance is excellent.

Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read press reports emanating from the West Country about a letter purporting to be written on behalf of, and indeed under the letterhead of, the leader of the Liberal Party—not inappropriately, by a gentleman named Mr. Mole—to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman favours the decriminalisation of cannabis? Will she confirm that such an idea has, and will continue to have, no part in Government policy?

I do not know the views of the leader of the Liberal Party, but I do not for one moment favour the decriminalisation of cannabis.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), may I draw attention to an error in today's Order Paper, on which the name of the personal assistant to the leader of the Liberal Party appears as Mr. Stuart Noble, whereas my hon. Friend referred to a Mr. Mole? Can we please see that these things are got right?

I shall do my best.