asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made with the full implementation of the Northern Ireland Act 1982.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about constitutional developments in Northern Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about developments at the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Since I last answered questions the Assembly has approved its own Standing Orders and a number of debates have taken place, two of which have been attended by Ministers. After the Christmas Recess the Assembly will have the opportunity to get down to the important task of scrutinising direct rule.

I wish my right hon. Friend a very happy Christmas, which we are delighted that he is to spend in Northern Ireland, as is entirely right and proper. Are not the Presiding Officer's appointments of Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly invalid under the Northern Ireland Act? If they are not, do they not make nonsense of the 70 per cent. provision for devolution proposals?

I do not think that they have any reference to the 70 per cent. proposals for devolution. If there is controversy about whether the Presiding Officer was in a proper relationship to the law in making the appointments, that is for the Assembly to discuss. I regret that there has been disagreement among the parties, but I believe that it is for the Assembly to work this out for itself. I hope that it will do so quickly.

Will civil servants from Northern Ireland Departments be encouraged to appear before Committees of the Assembly?

Yes, very much so, and we hope that they will.

As the chairmanship of Committees is supposed to reflect the balance of parties in the Assembly, but at least two of the parties elected are not present at the Assembly, what guidance will my right hon. Friend give to the Presiding Officer to ensure that that balance, or whatever balance is possible, can be achieved?

I do not think that it is for me to give guidance to the Presiding Officer. It is important that this House should not interfere in the workings of the Assembly. In so far as two parties are not yet taking part in the Assembly and therefore the balance cannot be absolutely sustained, I understand that the Presiding Officer has said that he will make necessary dispositions as regards Committees as represented by the parties at present in the Assembly, but there would have to be changes in the dispositions if the other parties at any time took their seats.

Does the Secretary of State recall that in the White Paper published before the Bill specific reference was made to the fact that the Presiding Officer should have consultations with the parties before appointing Chairmen? Exactly what procedures did the Secretary of State have in mind?

I should have thought that they would be the normal consultations that would take place on these occasions.

Here?

Not here, but with the Assembly. I should hope very much that the parties in the Assembly and the Presiding Officer will have such consultations.

Will the Secretary of State continue his efforts to try to persuade the SDLP to take part in the Assembly?

Yes, but I believe that those most likely to persuade the SDLP to take part are the Unionist Members of the Assembly. I urge them to do all that they can, in the interests of peace in Northern Ireland, to recognise that there are two traditions and identities and that unless both are properly represented in the Assembly there will not be peace or political stability.

Will the Secretary of State take it from me that considerable progress has been made in the Assembly not only in agreeing the Standing Orders and in having three ministerial appearances—not two, as the Secretary of State said—but in setting up the Committees and in the fact that public hearings have already been arranged? As the Assembly will be turning its mind in the new year to the second stage of the 1982 Act—the possibility of further devolved powers—will the Secretary of State expand on the statement that he made in this House on Friday 10 December when he said that it was possible to have devolution without power sharing at Cabinet level?

I cannot do during Question Time what the hon. Gentleman suggested in the latter part of his question, but there will be other opportunities to do so. There are other methods by which we can achieve a measure of devolution without it necessarily being a power sharing or Executive formula.

I should like to see the SDLP and others participate in the Assembly and make use of it on behalf of the people they represent. That would ensure that it received the cross-community support that we all seek. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that had he accepted our amendments when the Bill was going through the House there would have been a better chance of these people accepting their seats in the Assembly?

We argued about that at the time. I believe that I met in spirit and in law the need to ensure that there is widespread acceptance throughout the community before there can be any move towards devolved Government. In the interests of peace and political stability, I hope that we can now start to make some progress.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the workings of section 8 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 in so far as they relate to evidence.

All the provisions of the Act are to be examined during the forthcoming independent review.

I wish my hon. Friend a very happy Christmas. Will he say whether in Northern Ireland a large number of criminals and murderers have yet to be taken to court because of the probable difficulties, as a result of intimidation, of taking a case against them? If that is so, will he look at the matter carefully in the next year because of the terrible effect that it has had on the population over the last 10 years or so?

I thank my hon. Friend for his good wishes. The police and the security forces are doing everything that they can to ensure that there is no intimidation of witnesses who come forward with valuable evidence that could lead to a successful criminal prosecution. They have been successful so far this year, despite one or two well-publicised acts of intimidation that have resulted in witnesses withdrawing their evidence. In 1983 the security forces will do everything they possibly can to ensure that witnesses are not intimidated and that successful prosecutions are brought.

In view of the crucial importance of information, will the Minister encourage the security forces to adopt more effective methods of questioning and interrogation, similar to those employed by police forces in the rest of the United Kingdom?

To the best of my knowledge, the Chief Constable instructs the officers under him to use every proper form of interrogation of those brought into custody. That evidence is then laid before the courts, which can properly interpret it according to the statutory rules on the admissibility of evidence and the discretion that the courts have.

The Minister referred to the inquiry into the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. When is that likely to start? Since I said in September-Octover that I would be quite happy with the terms of reference, is he yet able to say what the terms of reference will be?

I can add nothing to what I said during the debate on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. My right hon. Friend hopes to announce the person who will conduct the review and its terms of reference as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people, wanted for trial on terrorist offences in Northern Ireland, are believed to have sought refuge in the United States of America in the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

Where there is sufficient evidence to justify extradition proceedings against any individual found to have fled to the United States, the Government have instituted such proceedings. We have received every assistance from the United States authorities in doing so. In the past 10 years, one application has been made in respect of a person wanted for criminal offences of a terrorist nature committed in Northern Ireland.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a constituent of mine has been extradicted to the United States for a motoring office, but there appears to be ample evidence that, in spite of the assistance of the United States authorities, the United States courts are interpreting the extradition treaty in a very partial manner and in a way that does not comply with the European convention on the suppression of terrorism? Is my right hon. Friend doing anything to secure an equal and even-handed appliction of the extradition treaty by courts on both sides of the Atlantic?

I know that a constituent of my hon. Friend has been treated in the way described. We have no evidence that the United States Administration do not wish to co-operate fully in extradition proceedings. Two draft Bills on extradition are currently under consideration in the United States. Neither would remove the consideration of political offence claims from the courts, but each would define what does not constitute a political offence. I believe that that would be an improvement on the present situation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that extradition cannot be a one-way street? When a terrorist wanted for crimes in Israel can be extradited immediately, why cannot the same be done for terrorists wanted for crimes in the United Kingdom?

The difficulty is caused by interpretations placed on the law. Above all else, we have always been careful about our attitude towards so-called political cases, but I agree that there is a need for the whole world to look at this matter again.

Would not extradition and our case against the IRA be considerably helped were the Government to take prime time on American television in certain states to put our case on Irish affairs?

I am not certain whether prime time in television commercials would help, but a great deal more can be done, needs to be done and, I hope, is now being done, to make certain that we put forward our case in the United States. The people who could do that best are the people of Ulster themselves, particularly the Churches, politicians and business men. I hope that in the new year we can make another concerted effort to put Ulster's case across.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to have discussions with the Irish Government regarding Northern Ireland matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next plans a meeting with representatives of the Government of the Irish Republic.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will meet the new Prime Minister of the Irish Republic in order to revive the proposal for an Anglo-Irish Council.

I have no immediate plans to meet members of the Irish Government, but I look forward to meetings in due course.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the need for talks to take place with the new Irish Government in the near future? There is undoubtedly urgency about the matter. Is it intended that the two Prime Ministers should meet in the near future?

It is important that there should be talks between the two Governments. It is equally important that such talks be carried out in a frank manner. There should be no question of any behind-the-stairs talking, such as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has unjustly accused us of on previous occasions—

Well, why mention it?

The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but we had better see how we get on with other talks before we reach that stage.

As one of the representatives of a town that has contributed in blood and young men who have gone to their graves long before their time, I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his efforts in the new year. I hope that he will have talks with the new Irish Government. Will he look at the prospects of economic co-operation? Surely it is not sensible for Northern Ireland and the Republic to have a beggar-my-neighbour policy on economic development. Would not economic talks be worth while?

I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his supplementary question, and I agree with what he said about the recent loss of life of members of the Cheshire Regiment in particular at Ballykelly.

Will the Minister, recognising that Northern Ireland provides the best market for the Republic, consider discussing a British-Irish Council rather than an Anglo-Irish Council, and perhaps encourage the Republic to come back into the fold?

I should always like to encourage anyone to join the fold, but it might be slightly unrealistic to expect early results. I agree that it should be a British-Irish Council, because it must include Scotland and Wales as well as England.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that when he has talks with the new Irish Government he will put extradition on the agenda as a top priority? He will be aware that the recent McGlinchey case in Dublin gave some favourable pointers towards a change of attitude on that very vexed question.

The McGlinchey case is an encouraging development, but it is not for me to speculate on how it might affect other requests for extradition from the Republic. Meanwhile, we shall put extradition at the top of any agenda for discussions with the Republic, because we believe that it is vital.

Will the Secretary of State accept that many people, irrespective of their view of the future constitutional position of Northern Ireland, regard the talks as extremely important? We welcome the view that the talks should be open and frank. Can the Secretary of State give some indication that there will be talks in the fairly near future not only between Ministers but also perhaps at civil servant level?

Yes, there can be talks at Civil Service level and at ministerial level. I hope that over the next few weeks and months we can have talks at all levels and gradually make some progress. That is the intention of Her Majesty's Government.

rose—

Order. The question by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has been answered, but he was not present to hear the answer, so I presume he does not want to ask a supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when, pursuant to his answer of 8 December, Official Report, c. 536–37, he expects the target of 2,800 jobs to be reached on the Lear Fan-jet project.

The financial assistance agreement signed on 14 September 1982 between Her Majesty's Government and Lear Fan Ltd. envisages a target of 2,826 jobs in Northern Ireland by 31 December 1987. This agreement was an important step forward in the history of the project. The provision of about two-thirds of the funding needed to take the aircraft to certification and beyond represents an expression of considerable confidence by the private sector interests concerned.

Every effort to obtain jobs in Northern Ireland—or anywhere else in the United Kingdom—is very welcome, but will the Minister explain why the taxpayer has now lost control of the project after contributing significant sums to it? Is not one of the lessons from the De Lorean project that the taxpayer, having been a significant contributor—indeed, the major contributor—should keep control to ensure that the project comes to fruition, as everyone wants it to do?

The best prospects for a company are when the private sector is prepared to put in its funds, preferably to the extent of meeting most of the funds required, and that is the situation in this case. Nevertheless, there is very strict financial and technical monitoring of the project on behalf of the taxpayer, and there are two directors on the taxpayers' behalf on the boards of Lear Fan Ltd. and Fan Holdings Incorporated.

Will the Minister of State do his best to remove the confusion caused by a recent Sunday Times article, which was absolutely bewildering in its conclusion, particularly when it asserted that the project was doomed to failure because it was likely to be successful?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that anxiety should have been caused by the article. One had to read almost to the end of it on an inside page to find words to the effect that the prospects for the project were now improving. I echo those words and not the headline which caused the anxiety in the first place.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the prospects for the Lear Fan—a revolutionary aircraft—are extremely bright as seen through civil aviation eyes? will he comment on the Sunday Times article and say whether he feels that, in spite of his hopes for private investment in the project, the British taxpayer will get any return on the investment already made in the project?

I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks, made with his particular experience of the industry. The return to the taxpayer will be represented by fairly substantial royalty payments, which will accrue against aircraft and spare parts sold to a maximum of $33·75 million, plus whatever dividend accrues from the 5 per cent. shareholding. One also has to include the benefit to the taxpayer in the sense that the jobs that are being provided by the project, which we hope will increase over the coming years, represent the best that can be done for the people of Northern Ireland.

Does the strict financial monitoring to which the Minister referred apply only to the Government money that is put in, or does it cover the overall financial position of the company? If he can give us an assurance that there will be very strict financial monitoring of the total position of the company, that will allay some of the rumours.

I can give the hon. Gentleman the categoric assurance that the monitoring applies to the full accounts of the company.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will review the role of representatives of the Northern Ireland Office posted to Her Majesty's embassy and Her Majesty's consulates in the United States of America.

Several members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, nearly all from the Industrial Development Board, are attached to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and are presently serving in certain of Her Majesty's diplomatic posts in the United States. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

What guarantee can the Government give that Industrial Development Board officers, funded out of the Northern Ireland Vote and charged with responsibility for promoting all the British regions and not exclusively the Northern Ireland region, are carrying out their functions properly? Will he give us an assurance that my region in the north of England is being promoted within their brief as vigorously as they are promoting Northern Ireland?

I have had the advantage of meeting all officers concerned, both in Northern Ireland when they return for annual conferences, and in post in North America. My impression is that they very fairly represent the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. They work along with the "Invest in Britain" bureau and they report not direct to the Industrial Development Board but through the consular machine.

In that the tasks of these people and the question relate to promoting Her Majesty's Government's case concerning Northern Ireland, is my hon. Friend really satisfied that they are using the language and putting the case across in a way that the ordinary American citizen understands? Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be helpful to point out to the Americans that the people of Northern Ireland are as entitled to their identity separate from that of Southern Ireland as are the people of Canada from that of the United States, and that the people of Northern Ireland are as entitled to choose their relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom as are the people of Puerto Rico to choose their relationship with the rest of the United States?

I think my hon. Friend will find that all those who promote industrial investment in Northern Ireland have to be proficient in promoting Northern Ireland as a whole and to be fully informed on the political, security and other aspects, in order to meet the queries and expressions of concern that frequently arise from those who may be interested in investing.

Have officials at the British embassy in Washington or anywhere else in the United States had their attention drawn to a document written by two Irish priests who paint a wholly inaccurate picture of what is happening in Northern Ireland? Does he know that those two priests are not speaking for the majority of Catholics or for the Catholic Church? Will he make representations to the leaders of the Catholic Church in Ireland and ask whether they agree that the views put forward in the document do not represent the views of the Catholic Church?

I do not know whether the industrial development officers have had their attention drawn to the document. When misleading propaganda is circulated it is our practice to counter it to the best of our ability. The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question falls outside the scope of the question on the Order Paper, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said and we shall follow it up.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions (a) Ministers in his Department and (b) civil servants have had meetings with elected Sinn Fein Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly; and what issues were discussed.

Since the recent Assembly elections there has been one meeting between an Under-Secretary of State and a delegation of elected representatives which included, among others, a Sinn Fein Assembly Member. The meeting was arranged to discuss housing matters in an area of Belfast. All the elected Sinn Fein representatives have had contact with Government officials at a local level on a range of constituency matters. I have made it clear that I am not prepared to talk to Sinn Fein Assembly Members about general issues until that party unequivocally repudiates violence.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer puts into a different context some of the arguments that took place about the proposed visit of Sinn Fein members to London a couple of weeks ago and that it is preferable to involve those people in political discussions, because that is the best way of persuading them that democratic political processes are preferable to violence?

The great mistake made by Mr. Livingstone two weeks ago was to invite Sinn Fein representatives for general discussions. If he had said "If you want to come, repudiate violence before you come", that would have been a very great step forward. The Sinn Fein Members of the Assembly were elected and there are constituency matters in which they are involved. We are following the long-established pattern that on constituency matters we allow the local elected people to have access to Ministers and officials. But that does not alter one iota the view that we all hold that we must repudiate violence of every sort from wherever it comes.

Does not the Secretary of State's reply throw into sharp relief the hypocrisy that was displayed two weeks ago? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what it feels like, and what his Ministers and civil servants feel like, to have discussions with men who are described as terrorists and as having been involved in the planning and implementation of terrorist offences? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is offensive to the people of Northern Ireland to have their whole country turned into an interment camp to save the rest of the United Kingdom? The Secretary of State cannot hide behind the legislation. If people are considered terrorists and a danger in London, they should be regarded as terrorists and a danger in Belfast, and the Government should act accordingly.

The hon. Gentleman does not do his case any good and does not help to create peace in Northern Ireland by seeking to stir it up in that manner. However, of course I sympathise with, and understand, the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. The difficulty is that the people of whom we are speaking are resident in Northern Ireland and there is no way in which one can ban them from their own country.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a convention in Dublin a few days after the Assembly elections the elected representatives of Sinn Fein pledged themselves unequivocally to back the armed struggle and the campaign of murder in Northern Ireland? Does he not feel that the people of Northern Ireland are justifiably stirred up by the two attitudes that are adopted—one in London and another in Northern Ireland?

I understand the views of the people of Northern Ireland. I have had them expressed to me in no uncertain terms. The point is that evidence used by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to advise the Home Secretary not to admit people to Britain may not be sufficient to bring about a conviction in a court in Northern Ireland. If we can get the necessary evidence against these people, charges will be brought.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will institute special security precautions during the Christmas season.

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

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

I regret to report that since 25 November, 22 people have died in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. Seventeen of these, 11 soldiers and six civilians, died as a result of the explosion at Ballykelly on 6 December. Three other members or ex-members of the security forces were shot down. A man has already been charged in respect of one of these shootings. Two men, claimed as members of the Irish National Liberation Army, were shot dead by the police.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Christmas and all Christmases to come will be haunted by the memory of those who have lost their lives or been bereaved needlessly because he despised and rejected the advice and warnings of those who know better than he?

The right hon. Gentleman is making serious charges, which I believe he has absolutely no justification for making. Everyone, except, apparently, the right hon. Gentleman, knows that terrorists do not need the excuse of an Assembly to carry out their activities. What is more, they have been carrying out those activities for the past 12 years. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must realise that whatever view he takes about the Assembly, it has not been the cause of increased violence or, regrettably, less violence.

Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to Her Majesty's Forces, the RUC, the RUC Reserve, and the UDR the deep gratitude of the Ulster people for the service that they are giving in Northern Ireland?

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his question. The whole House will agree with his sentiments.

What special precautions were taken at places used by soldiers before the Ballykelly bombing? In the light of the McGlinchey case, has the RUC prepared a long list of applications for extraditions from the Irish Republic?

The hon. Gentleman's questions are matters for the GOC and the Chief Constable respectively. I have no doubt that the GOC has taken, and will take, all the measures that he thinks right to protect soldiers and others when they are out of barracks. I also have no doubt that, following the McGlinchey case, the Chief Constable is making what preparations he thinks right with regard to extraditions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole nation will share the gratitude, expressed on behalf of the Ulster people by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), to the security forces? Does my right hon. Friend not think it extraordinary that, in such a protracted emergency, court sentences and remission policy mean that unreformed terrorists are set free to rejoin the terrorist ranks while hostilities continue? Can something be done about this?

We must obey the rulings of the courts. If we fail to do so, we are playing into the hands of the terrorists. I assure my hon. Friend that the rules for those committed to life sentences are different and that careful consideration is given before any release is contemplated.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition also wish to express thanks to all members of the security forces who will be busy at work on our behalf over Christmas? I include the Minister who has drawn the short straw as the duty Minister over Christmas. It is the Opposition's firm belief that if progress is to be made over security the best way forward is by political means. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured of our support for any steps towards political progress that are taken on both sides of the community.

I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I make one last Christmas appeal to Members of the Unionist Party who are present to give the Assembly a chance. I ask them to recognise that a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland with powers available and exercised by the people of Northern Ireland acting in community is the most likely way to achieve political stability and, in the long run, the peace that is available in Northern Ireland.

Will the Minister accept that the practicability point is difficult, following his earlier answer to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), when he said that it would take the presence of the SDLP to restore those powers? If we are paying tribute to the security forces, will the right hon. Gentleman take the practical step of honouring them through the award of medals? Will he further acknowledge that within the law it is a travesty that 50 per cent. remission, instead of the parole system, is applicable to terrorists in Northern Ireland?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have promised the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) to consider the last point. If we are to achieve peace, all sections of society in Northern Ireland have to be prepared to give up some of their most cherished views. That is what we are looking for. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether I can put forward, within the context of the Assembly, any further suggestions that might help to get devolved government back to Northern Ireland, I can tell him that this is something that I am prepared to do in consultation with the parties as soon as they wish to come and talk to me about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons found guilty of membership of an illegal organisation received non-custodial sentences in the past five years; and what percentage of the total this represents.

Where a charge of membership is combined with another charge, the available statistics record only the most serious offence or that for which the offender received the heaviest sentence. A substantial number of convictions for membership of a proscribed organisation are therefore excluded. On this basis, however, a total of 174 people convicted of membership of a proscribed organisation since 1 January 1978 have received non-custodial sentences. This represents 75 per cent. of the total number of such convictions.

Is it not preposterous and outrageous that three-quarters of those found guilty of membership of an organisation that carries out the most heinous crimes in our society should receive non-custodial sentences? Do not those figures in themselves state the case for a minimum mandatory sentence?

That is not for us to determine. The courts have a wide range of penalties available to them, up to the 10 years' maximum custodial sentence allowed by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. A substantial number of people receive custodial sentences.

asked the Secretary of State of Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the possibility of the extension of the less favoured areas in Northern Ireland.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food informed the House on 13 December 1982, the case for the extension of the less favoured areas in the United Kingdom has now been formally submitted to the European Commission.

Has the Minister studied the line that was drawn to define the new less favoured areas in Northern Ireland? Does not that line expose the nonsense of the whole system? Is he aware that many areas of land that can be clearly classified as less favoured are excluded?

The line which, if it takes effect, will bring 75 per cent. or so of Norther Ireland within the less favoured areas was drawn up according to the criteria laid down in the directive. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of those critria. They are not as straightforward as some people believe.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 23 December.

:In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

In wishing my right hon. Friend a deserved and very happy and peaceful Christmas, may I ask her over the Christmas holiday to spare a thought, and also encourage everyone to spare a thought, for the millions of people around the world who are not free to travel, to speak and write what they wish, to congregate or to choose their Government? Will she in the new year try to encourage people like Mr. Bruce Kent to recognise that his inability to differentiate between the East and West blocs must seem deeply offensive to people like Archbishop Glemp, for whom words such as "peace" and "freedom" have real meaning?

I agree with my hon. Friend that freedom and justice are very precious. We should not take them for granted. There are hundreds of millions of people in the world who would wish to have the freedoms that we have in this country. They must be defended. Otherwise, those who are so free to exercise freedom of speech will no longer be able to do so. The best defence is the Western Alliance and the nuclear deterrent.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that we are all concerned to try to get the best defence we can without blowing the world to pieces? Has the right hon. Lady had a chance to reconsider the reply that she made to the House on Tuesday about Mr. Andropov's proposals? The right hon. Lady said, I think, that she had not had time to read the full proposals. She made the most peremptory and slapdash reply on a matter of major importance. Has she had now chance to consult the Foreign Office, which seems to take a very different view from hers on the way that negotiations should be proceeded with?

The Foreign Office takes precisely the view that the Foreign Secretary and I take. It is perfectly straightforward and simple. The Soviet Union has been offered the zero option of no intermediate range nuclear missiles. That is by far the best answer for the Soviet Union and for us. For all those who hate nuclear weapons and who wish for peace everywhere, that is the option that we should go for. I am utterly mystified that certain Members of the Opposition prefer to go for an option where we have none and the Soviet Union still has very many.

The right hon. Lady has not followed these matters. Nor has she attempted to reply to the specific questions that I have put. What she has just stated does not accord with what the Foreign Secretary told the House yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman attempted, at any rate, to treat the matter seriously. There are many others in Europe who have responded seriously—for example, the Foreign Minister of West Germany. Is the right hon. Lady aware that we are asking her to catch up with the Foreign Office on this issue? Will she recognise that 1983 could be the most dangerous year in the history of the nuclear arms race and that we want a British Government who will act constructively to try to end that race?

The danger will be reduced, not by Mr. Andropov's proposals, but by haling no intermediate-range nuclear weapons. The right hon. Gentleman is prepared to have some on the Soviet side. I do not want any. I want a zero option on both sides. If he wants the official Foreign Office briefing, let me give it to him. It is that

"a continuing Soviet monopoly of longer-range INF missiles in Europe, with NATO alone implementing the zero option, would be unacceptable."

Did not the Foreign Secretary say yesterday that these porposals would be examined seriously? Which is the Government's policy—the right hon. Lady's explosions, or the Foreign Secretary's considered replies?

The policy of Her Majesty's Government is the zero option. It is, perhaps, because some of us have stood so firmly by it and said that the cruise missiles will be deployed unless we get satisfactory conclusions from the Soviet Union that the Soviet Union is now for the first time beginning to consider reducing armaments. It has a long way to go yet for the zero option. The right hon. Gentleman is content for it to have some and for us to have none. I repeat, for the Soviet Union to have a monopoly of those weapons, and for us to have none, is totally unacceptable to the Government.

The right hon. Lady should sort out these matters. When she talks about these negotiations, in fact it was pressure from the Opposition and the peace movement throughout Europe that got the Geneva discussions going.

Rubbish.

The Government did not say a word in favour of those Geneva talks before President Reagan was eventually persuaded to come forward in favour of them. We were in favour of those talks all along.

The right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. An extensive list of proposals for reducing strategic weapons, for a zero option of intermediate-range nuclear forces and substantial reductions in conventional weapons was put forward in a well-known speech by President Reagan. It was an excellent package of disarmament proposals on a multilateral basis. Is the right hon. Gentleman for the zero option, or is he prepared to have a monopoly of those intermediate-range weapons on the Soviet side and none on ours? He must answer that question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 23 December.

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

I echo the good wishes already expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley). Will my right hon. Friend find time today to read the copy of the document that I have sent to her entitled "Avon Peace Education Project: A Programme for Schools"? Does she feel that there is a danger that the so-called peace studies are being used by CND as a means of indoctrinating our schoolchildren? Does she agree that peace, good will and disarmament are all part of the Christmas message, are two-sided if not multi-sided matters, and that the unilateralists, by definition, are more likely to put those aims at risk than to secure them?

Thanks to my hon. Friend, I am aware of that syllabus, which was produced not by the Avon education authority, but by a group of people funded, I believe, by the Rowntree Trust. I am as anxious about those matters as my hon. Friend. I agree with him completely that unilateralism would put peace, freedom and justice at risk. I should think that many of us who lived through the 1930s are well aware of that. It leads to weakness and puts freedom and justice at risk. There cannot be both unilateralism and multilateralism. One has to have multilateralism. It is for both governors and parents to consider the matter carefully and make their views known to education authorities and head teachers.

I also wish the Prime Minister a happy, relaxed, family Christmas. During the holidays will she reflect on the English housing condition survey, just published by the Department of the Environment, which designates 1 million houses as unfit? As there are 400,000 building workers on the dole, will she make a new year's resolution to start a sustained programme of home improvement and thus bring seasonal cheer to such people as the 76-year-old man in Liverpool, reportedly sleeping on the floor, and let them know that something will be done to clear these unfit houses in the coming year?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, which I reciprocate warmly. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Housing and Construction at the Department of the Environment issued a statement which came out at the same time as the housing survey. It pointed out that the Government had taken a number of steps to increase improvement grant activity. There has been a significant rise in the number of improvement grants paid. In the third quarter of this year they were the highest since 1974. The Minister listed a further five major steps which the Government have taken which will, I hope, deal with many of the matters mentioned in the housing report. The five steps are detailed in the answer that he gave a few days ago.

In view of the important relationship between the sale of British goods and the protection of British jobs, will my right hon. Friend find time during a busy day to consider recommending to Her Majesty the Queen the institution of an award system for retailers of wholly British goods along similar lines to the award system for British industry, with an award of a special emblem going to the top 10 firms who sell most British goods in each year?

I shall of course look at that suggestion. There are a number of items that are not made in this country. We have to remember also that we depend on exports for many jobs. It is very important to urge people to remember that jobs and prosperity depend upon customer satisfaction and purchase. It will help if people will buy British goods that are of excellent value and design rather than foreign goods. I hope that people will take that step.

Will the right hon. Lady, who in 1982 has done so much to revive the national spirit of this country and to prove that sovereignty is no longer a dirty word, recognise that in 1983 in those two principles will lie the solution to her problems and ours in maintaining the Union of the United Kingdom and in making new relations between Great Britain and our continental neighbours?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in the earlier part of his question. It is right that we defend our legal sovereignty and uphold international law in so doing. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. I believe and hope that it will remain part of the United Kingdom.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 December.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that people and firms in the West Midlands, the region with the highest rising and absolute rate of unemployment, agree that Labour's policy of increased spending, borrowing and taxation, leading to increasing inflation and ever higher unemployment, offers no answer to their growing anxiety over the continuing decline in the industrial base as they struggle to regain competitiveness and customers? They expect—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be fair. If he asks a quick question, other hon. Members can be called.

—to be able to compete on fair and equal terms with other regions in this country and other countries, whether Spain, the political economies, or our partners in the EC.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's economic analysis. We must have sound financial policies, get down inflation and try to keep down interest rates if those industries in the West Midlands are to have a real chance in a highly competitive world. I am well aware of the difficulties that the West Midlands has with imports, especially from Spain and Japan. We are in touch with the European Community about this matter, especially about Spain and Japan. We have said that we really must have some action about both and that, if not, we shall have to consider taking action ourselves.

Will the Prime Minister say what principles are being applied in the Government's review of their regional policies? Whatever they are, will she assure the House that more and not fewer resources are needed in areas such as the North, and will she say when the review is likely to be completed?

The principle of the review of regional policies is to see how we can best help effectively and in the longer run to build industries that will have a future. We are all very much aware that some of those who went to the regions—I suppose that Linwood is a classic example—did not have a future. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have concentrated our help on the special development areas. We shall continue to do that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the considered and grave charges that I made against the Prime Minister personally on Tuesday, has there been any request to answer substantive Question No. Q8?

No.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order. Normally I take points of order after the Business Question. Officially, we are still in Question Time.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us tabled questions of substance to the Prime Minister today. Will you give us general guidance? Do those hon. Members who table questions of substance thereby disadvantage themselves in that they have little chance of being called?

Not at all. The hon. Gentleman's question was No. 8 and that was his disadvantage. If it had been No. 1, it would have been called.