asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now proscribe Sinn Fein.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will proscibe Provisional Sinn Fein; and if he will make a statement.

This is kept under constant review; and the Government are considering what other measures can be taken to improve the effectiveness of the fight against terrorism and of the enforcement of the law against incitement to violence.

Does the Secretary of State concede that recent disclosures on "World in Action" show that Irish Republican terrorists and Sinn Fein support each other, and that both maintain recruitment through their propaganda campaign and through terror? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take the limited step of banning the spokesmen of organisations which encourage violence from furthering their aims and objectives on radio and television?

That last suggestion would be very difficult for me to take up, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on the matter and in particular on the "World in Action" programme to which he refers. There are problems associated with the production of admissible evidence in such cases. However, the Royal Lister Constabulary is studying carefully the recordings of that programme and if, as a result, the Director of Public Prosecutions finds grounds for prosecution, charges will be brought against those concerned.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that TV-AM acted in a thoroughly irresponsible manner in granting an interview to Mr. Gerry Adams in which he was able to peddle his message of hatred and violence? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to urge broadcasting authorities to exercise more responsibly their discretion over such interviews?

Yes, Sir. In general, I agree with my hon. Friend. I urge the television and radio authorities to act responsibly. However, I considered that the "World in Action" programme was extremely good in that it showed what the man really is.

Is it not a fact that nothing would be solved by proscribing Sinn Fein? The political and economic problems of Northern Ireland would remain. Some terrorists are completely opposed to the type of work: that Sinn Fein is doing — other than the things it is accused of doing—and in any case, if proscribed, they would go under ground and stay in Northern Ireland in some other way.

The hon. Gentleman is broadly speaking correct. However, it would help enormously if he stated quite firmly that Provisional Sinn Fein must renounce violence before anyone can talk to it and before it can be treated in a normal democratic way.

Is the Secretary of State aware that one structure covers both Sinn Fein and the IRA, and that at a recent conference, reported in the "World in Action" film, there was a closed session at which people cheered loudly when it was announced that another service man had been gunned down by the IRA? As the Secretary of State has proscribed the IRA, should he not take another step and proscribe something which is really another part of the IRA?

We keep that matter under careful review. However, we must assess all the consequences of taking such a step. In that respect, I have that particular conference very much in mind.

Does the Secretary of State agree that our profound and passionate disagreement with the views of a political party, however odious we may believe that party to be, is not a reason for preventing it from expressing them? Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that if someone counsels or procures the commission of a criminal offence he may be prosecuted under the existing law? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, although we all completely condemn terrorism, terrorist activities are not best prevented by stopping people from taking part in constitutional political discussion?

We utterly condemn violent people masquerading under the banner of democracy and democratic rights. That is what we must deal with in the case of the Provisional Sinn Fein. If it renounced violence, many people would be prepared to talk to it. However, while it has the gun in one hand and the ballot box in the other, no respectable politician should have anything to do with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he intends to introduce to improve security in prisons in Northern Ireland.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making a statement to the House on this matter later this afternoon.

Will the Minister undertake to review the changes made in the regime of prisons in the aftermath of the hunger strike? Those changes did much to cause confusion and to undermine the confidence and morale of the prison service.

I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be dealing with that point in his statement later this afternoon. However, I must disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's underlying premise.

On the assumption that the Minister is satisfied with security at the Maze at present, which of the procedures which were dismantled in the aftermath of the hunger strike have been reintroduced following the escape?

I must leave all those matters to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total annual level of public expenditure per head of population in Northern Ireland.

Public expenditure per head in Northern Ireland is estimated at £2,437 for the current year. This excludes expenditure in Northern Ireland which falls outside the area of responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Although no one would grudge extra public expenditure on items such as helping the unemployed, in view of the higher incidence of unemployment in Northern Ireland, how much longer does the hon. Gentleman think the British taxpayer will tolerate a situation whereby public expenditure per head of population in Northern Ireland is far in excess of that in any other part of the United Kingdom? One of the reasons for that is that per head of population in Northern Ireland security costs alone are now approaching £100 per annum. How long will the Government keep propping up an unstable gerrymandered Province which should never have been founded in the first place?

The reasons for that high expenditure per head of population are social and economic, and certainly reflect the security situation. If the hon. Gentleman intends to ask United Kingdom citizens about their view of expenditure in disadvantaged regions, he should also ask them about Scotland. Expenditure per head in Northern Ireland is only one fifth higher than it is in Scotland.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the United Kingdom, where there are problems reflecting the security of our military establishments inevitably there will be increased costs and that, equally, the people who are camping outside the submarine bases in the Clyde will add to our costs?

My hon. Friend has made his point, and I am sure that the House has heard it.

Will the Minister consult his colleagues to see whether it is possible to give the corresponding figures for the constituency of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)?

We do not want to kill each other in Falkirk, West.

But the hon. Gentleman's constituency gets the public money.

I cannot give the expenditure figures per head for the constituency of Falkirk, West, but I am glad that, although the unemployment level at 16 per cent. is high, it is considerably below the average in the Province.

The House must accept that expenditure in Northern Ireland is high because of the security problems, but does the Minister agree that people in Northern Ireland would be delighted if the massive expenditure on security were to be set aside by the annihilation of the IRA and the problem of our land?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There would be great cause for rejoicing if that happened. There would be equal cause for rejoicing if the other social and economic problems of the Province were brought down at least to the average in the United Kingdom, because the high expenditure per head would not then be necessary. At the moment that expenditure is necessary, and it will continue to be provided.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of youngsters completing the youth training programme in Northern Ireland are now in full-time employment.

Information maintained does not distinguish between those completing their training and those leaving early. However, during the last quarter of 1983, of those young people who left the youth training programme and whose destinations are known, 53 per cent. went straight into employment.

Does the Minister realise that I find that figure difficult to understand or believe, especially as he has admitted in recent weeks that it would require too much form-filling by employers in Northern Ireland to determine how many 16 and 17-year-olds are in employment? If only two fifths of youngsters in Britain as a whole obtain jobs after going through the youth training schemes, how can the Minister monitor the effectiveness of training if he does not know how many youngsters are in employment?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to questions for written answer put down by him on the ages of individuals. We keep records of those who come under what we call the guaranteed year, which is the first year after leaving school, and those in the next year. I assure him that my reply is correct. I should like the figure to be higher. I wish the hon. Gentleman would give at least some credit to the youth training programme for producing what is, in today's circumstances, a good result. We do undertake monitoring, but in a way that differs from what the hon. Gentleman would like.

Does the Minister accept the underlying implication and accusation of my hon. Friend's question? Is it not a fact that the problem is that post-school people have neither jobs nor education? When will the Government produce a scheme which provides either education or jobs for people in that age group?

The accusation of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) was that I was not giving the right answer, but the answer was correct. It demonstrated that, at least in the case of more than half of the trainees, the youth training programme is doing a good job in providing the skills that make them more qualified for employment.

Will the Minister inform the House of the percentage paid by Europe towards the youth training schemes in Northern Ireland?

I would require notice of that question before answering, but there is some benefit and we are glad to receive it.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration is currently being given to the transformation of the Northern Ireland Assembly into a regional council with local government powers in order to provide administrative devolution.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to address a meeting of the Ulster Assembly.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had since Christmas with political leaders in the Province.

In recent weeks I have had a number of meetings with the Northern Ireland constitutional party leaders. I have listened carefully to their suggestions for political development in the Province, including suggestions for the devolution of administrative functions to locally elected representatives. The Government remain of the view that any such arrangements must enjoy widespread support across the community if they are to be stable and durable. I regret that the Ulster Unionist party has withdrawn from the Assembly and I urge it and the SDLP to take their places. Meanwhile, the Assembly continues. I have no plans to address it at present.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I appreciate that he wishes to obtain widespread community support for his plans, but does he agree that administrative devolution to a local authority, which may come from the Assembly, thus turning it into a regional assembly, may be a way forward which would command widespread support in Northern Ireland?

That remains to be seen. I do not necessarily rule out the possibility of some changes which could be helpful to the Northern Ireland community generally if we could obtain agreement on them.

When my right hon. Friend next talks to political leaders, or has the opportunity to address the Assembly, will he take the opportunity to explain why permission was given for the change in the name of the Londonderry district authority?

I have no doubt that I shall have a number of opportunities to explain that in the next few weeks. The Local Government Act 1972 clearly provides that district councils may apply for their names to be changed—and it is the district council. The city council made it very clear over a period of time that it desired the change. Recognising the sensitivities of the case, and having listened to a range of representations over a considerable period, the Government thought it right in this case to accede to the council's request.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the horrific problems of Northern Ireland will not be solved within the context of the present Northern Ireland state, that the violence springs from the fact that we divided Ireland without the consent of the Irish people, that that violence requires a political solution and that we shall not be able to get down to the politics until the Unionist veto is withdrawn? Will he give favourable consideration to that?

That point of view is frequently put to me, but I must tell the House that I am absolutely certain that there can be no change in the constitution of Northern Ireland within the foreseeable future. I make that absolutely clear. Those who suggest otherwise do not help the many constitutional nationalists who may wish for a different solution but who know perfectly well that without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland it will simply not be forthcoming.

In view of the strange present condition of the Northern Ireland Assembly, will my right hon. Friend receive and consider ideas on administrative devolution being prepared by several of his hon. Friends with due regard both for unionist aspirations and for nationalist anxieties?

I am of course, prepared to look at any sensible proposals which meet the broad criteria that we have laid down. I have made that absolutely clear on a number of occasions to deputations which have come to see me. I must, however, insist and advise the House that unless there is a willingness by the minority as well to accept the proposals put forward they simply will not work. One of the difficulties is that it was the local government route which was so despised and was the original cause of so many of the problems which we now face.

Will the Secretary of State admit at last that from the very beginning, and even before he announced his proposals publicly, the SDLP told him that no Unionist party would accept the terms that he was laying down for devolution of power and that therefore the Assembly would not work? Will he thank the SDLP for its honesty, because if our advice had been taken he would not have wasted the last 18 months on a useless initiative?

I am afraid I cannot accept that. The whole purpose of the Assembly in its first instance was to enable people of very different and entrenched views to discover what they had in common, and many of them have a great deal in common in Northern Ireland, including the preservation of peace. I believe that if the SDLP had taken part in that Assembly it would have had a lot more influence on the Unionist party than it has been able to have from outside.

Does the Secretary of State agree that considerably more hope for the future of Northern Ireland comes from the Northern Ireland Assembly than from the talks taking place in another jurisdiction, in which the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is taking part? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that consideration is presently being given to the setting up of a Report Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly to discharge one of the functions that he set it under the 1982 Act?

I think that the Assembly has done some extremely good work. If the Report Committee is set up—I hope that it will be—we shall seek to give it what help we can. I believe, though, that only the people of Northern Ireland themselves, whether they are unionists or constitutional nationalists, can actually prepare and advance the ground for devolution and for a greater say in their own affairs. I think that the Assembly provides them with an opportunity to do so.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people consider that his failure when he established the Assembly to give any meaningful consideration to the aspirations of the SDLP, which prevented it from joining the Assembly, in fact so undermined the SDLP's position that in very many ways the success of Provisional Sinn Fein in the election could be laid at the right hon. Gentleman's door?

I think that that would be a grossly unfair position to adopt and I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman for taking it. The SDLP was very suspicious that the terms written into the 1982 Act would not protect it from an old-type Stormont. I should have thought that everything I have said and everything that has happened since show that the Government were not prepared to put proposals to this House for devolution until and unless there was widespread acceptance throughout the community. That acceptance must mean that the minority themselves are agreeable to the sort of proposals that we have made.

Will the Minister consider, in view of his reference to consent, setting up a conference of organisations north and south of the border in order to draw up a new constitution for a united Ireland?

All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that, if he believes that Act is an option, he knows very little about Northern Ireland.

Does the Secretary of State accept that nothing could be less helpful than for him to say to the constitutional nationalist parties that there is no hope for a constitutional change whatsoever? Everyone accepts that there is no hope for a Northern Ireland settlement without consent from the 1 million unionists and the 4 million nationalists in the island of Ireland, but the Assembly itself was in fact a constitutional change and one which was bitterly resisted by both unionists and nationalists. We ought to recognise that and make it clear that other changes in the constitution are needed, and those might be necessary in the face of resistance from some parts of the community.

I have made it perfectly plain that if there is a widespread wish for changes to the Assembly this House and the Government will consider them, but I stand by the general criteria laid down in the 1982 Act. All I can say about constitutional change is that the Labour party is committed to no constitutional change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people. It knows as well as I do that that consent is simply not forthcoming, and that is what must be understood.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial provision was made for roads in Newtownabbey borough for the current financial year.

The provision, exclusive of street lighting and car parking, is £1·6 million.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that sufficient funds are being made available for this area, bearing in mind that as recently as November 140 street lights were not working, that some of them had been off for as long as two years and that in the recent bad weather very little road gritting and clearing was done in the Carnmoney, Glengormley and Collinbridge areas? Indeed, one gentleman was unable to go to hospital because the ambulance could not get to his home, as road gritting had not been carried out.

I know how much interest the hon. Gentleman has taken in this subject, since he was a distinguished mayor of the district council. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that, within an overall smaller roads budget for next year, we shall be spending more on minor works and maintenance, and I am sure that some of that will be spent in his constituency. I shall look as a matter of some urgency into the problem of street lighting.

Does the right hon. Gentleman have any change in mind for the name of the council of Newtownabbey other than that mentioned on the Order Paper?

Order. That supplementary is very wide of the main question.

Would it not be to the advantage of Northern Ireland and of the hon. Gentleman in his office if in Northern Ireland there were local councillors of local authorities who were responsible for the administration of street lighting and roads, as in the rest of the kingdom?

There are, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, some proposals — for example, on handing over responsibility in an agency capacity for car parking—at present being considered by the association of local authorities of Northern Ireland. We have not yet received a response to those proposals, but I am sure that in due course a response will come, and then we shall be able to give the matter our normal constructive consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the present level of co-operation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

I have at present no plans to meet Dr. FitzGerald, but I met the Irish Minister for Justice, Mr. Noonan, on 10 January. I expect to meet Irish Ministers from time to time within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council to review matters of common concern. I am satisfied with the present level of co-operation in economic, social, cultural and security matters between the two countries.

Is it not a fact that in any discussions the right hon. Gentleman's mind must be in possession of the knowledge that there is an Assembly in Northern Ireland which can hardly be called an Assembly — because it does not work in that it is incomplete because some of the Unionists do not attend and because the representatives of the minority community do not attend—and that in Southern Ireland there is a so-called All-Ireland Forum which is in the same parlous position, where representatives from the North do not attend? Is it not possible for us somehow, without going the whole hog, to try to think along the lines mentioned by Churchill when he said,

"Jaw-jaw is better than war-war",

Order. The hon. Member's question is already over-long.

I am all for jaw-jaw and I have spent a great deal of time jaw-jawing in Northern Ireland and shall continue to do so. Good relations with the Republic of Northern Ireland are an important part of that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that co-operation present and future, after the Forum report, will be largely determined by the realistic acceptance of the Government in the Republic of the present constitutional position of Northern Ireland — that it is part of the United Kingdom for as long as a majority of its citizens wish it to be so?

If that could be accepted, there would be open to us a range of measures which would enable the minority to exercise their identity and traditions in a way completely acceptable to the peoples of Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Will the Secretary of State be more forthcoming about his discussions with Mr. Noonan when he met him in Dublin? Did they talk about the taking of hostages in the South and about greater co-operation between the British and Irish Governments to arraign the people who carry out such villainous deeds?

The talks were private and were about security and common interests. They did not relate to any issue of the sort mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that we had a wide-ranging review of all that we can do to co-operate better to defeat terrorism and to stop kidnapping and similar activities.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although a closer relationship between the North and South in Ireland would create a considerable financial burden for the North and would have to be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland, there is a case for the formation of an Anglo-Irish Council? Would my right hon. Friend give that proposal a fair wind in Parliament?

That is a matter for the House and Parliament, not for me. Provided that the council sought to bring about a closer understanding of the problems of the North and the South, it could do nothing but good.

Further to the reply which the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), if he meets Dr. Garret FitzGerald will he remind him of the constitutional crusade that he launched three years ago? It sought to delete the offensive articles 2 and 3 from the Irish Republic's constitution. Does he agree that, had they been deleted, it would have led to a new relationship between the two parts of Ireland, which might have bred good neighbourliness, to the advantage of everyone living on the island?

Dr. FitzGerald knows only too well that those two articles are regarded as the stumbling block to the sort of relationship which the hon. Gentleman and I wish to see.

Was the Secretary of State co-operating with the Government of the Irish Republic when he approved the change in the name of the city of Londonderry's council? Will he proceed by statutory rule, or by Order in Council?

That has nothing to do with the question on the Order Paper, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall proceed in the correct way. I shall let him know as soon as I can which way I shall proceed.

I do not ask the Secretary of State to commit himself in advance of the Forum report, but may I ask him to consider seriously whether any proposals that emerge can be made the subject of discussions between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic and of any party in the North that can be persuaded to respond? Will he at least announce his recognition that there are some interests which all the people of these islands have in common and consider, for example, the recent report by Co-operation North on industrial development?

The people of these islands have many interests in common. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the Government will keep an open mind about the Forum report and try to respond to it, if it is in a form to which we can respond. We await the report with anxiety and hope.

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 on the border and the protection of Protestant churches.

Since I last answered questions on 8 December, one member of the RUC, three members of the UDR and three civilians have died in incidents arising from the security situation in Northern Ireland. Two incidents were in border areas. In the opinion of the security forces these can best be countered by continuing covert operations and good professional relations with the Garda. But they also recognise the value of more visible security in the form of foot and mobile patrols and vehicle checks, which help to reassure those living there. Indeed, the security forces have provided those covert and oven security measures at and near Protestant churches after discussions with the clergy and other church representatives. All those matters are being carefully reviewed and any necessary measures till be taken during the next few weeks.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that full reply. Will he ensure that there is a uniformly high level of security along the frontier so that, for example, the provisions that operate in Fermanagh—the blocking of as many roads as possible and the guarding of fewer crossing points—operate also in Armagh?

The House will be interested to know that the Army is carrying out a full review of all crossing points on the border. It will consider carefully other matters, such as the guarding of intersections, to which my hon. Friend draws attention.

Although I appreciate what the security forces did in the wake of the Darkley murders, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two mobile support units from the RUC have now been completely withdrawn from that area? Is he further aware that those attending isolated Protestant churches are very apprehensive about security? Will he give us some details of the number of open crossings into the Irish Republic in that area and will he take steps to close them?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are a number of crossings, and I hope to give further details on those that can be closed within a few weeks. As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, there has been some withdrawal of police and troops from the Darkley and border area during the past few weeks. That withdrawal is not permanent; it will be matched by occasions when the police and troops return to the area to create the maximum amount of surprise and flexibility.

Although we welcome the Secretary of State's statement about reviewing security on the frontier, does he agree that it is rather odd that this should happen after 14 years of violence? Should security not be an ongoing operation rather than the stop-go system which reacts to terrorist violence?

It would be wrong to say that it is a stop-go system. Security policy is constantly reviewed, and this is a further review.

Does the Secretary of State have any plans to ban civilians working in security installations in Northern Ireland from membership of trade unions? As a major recipient of intelligence gathered by Cheltenham, was he consulted by the Foreign Secretary before his statement yesterday, and has the right hon. Gentleman made representations in recent years in support of yesterday's proposal?

No, because Reagan has not told him yet.

The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) is ingenious, but that question must be answered by someone else.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider establishing an inquiry into possible links between the security forces in Northern Ireland and Loyalist paramilitary groups.

No, Sir. The RUC already investigates any reports of illegal association with thoroughness and urgency, whomsoever they may involve.

Do recent alleged cases of links between the Ulster Defence Regiment and Loyalist paramilitary organisations not undermine people's faith and confidence in the security forces? Would not a public inquiry be the best way of resolving the fears, so that people can have faith in the security forces and know the extent of the links between the UDR and the paramilitary organisations?

It is certainly no part of my job to comment upon individual cases which are subject to the judicial process. I shall do nothing to undermine the confidence of the public of Northern Ireland in the UDR as a whole, which does a first-class job on behalf of the community there.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he proposes to eliminate the religious imbalance in the Northern Ireland Civil Service reported by the Fair Employment Agency.

The Fair Employment Agency report of 8 December 1983 shows that the Northern Ireland Civil Service practises fair recruitment and promotion procedures and that both communities are now actively seeking employment in the service. These factors can be expected to accelerate the closing over recent years of the gap in the ratios between Protestants and Roman Catholics. The main recommendations in the report will now be discussed in detail with the agency and the trade unions.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that it is still the case that 70 per cent. of those employed in local government or Government circles in Northern Ireland are Protestant and 30 per cent. are Roman Catholic? That proportion should be changed. Does he agree that more Catholics should be employed as soon as possible?

As I said to the hon. Gentleman in my reply, the gap has been closing over recent years and there is every reason to suppose that it will continue to close.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 26 January.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Shortly after Questions I shall be departing for Rome for talks with the Italian Prime Minister.

In the light of yesterday's announcement about GCHQ, can the Prime Minister explain why a civil servant automatically ceases to be a security risk if he or she accepts £1,000 in return for giving up a trade union membership card?

The question is much deeper than that. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it has been the practice under all Governments to exempt those who work in intelligence agencies from the privilege of joining a union. Legislation has provided for it. Until 1983 the work of GCHQ was never acknowledged as that of an intelligence agency. No previous Government had acknowledged it as such. For reasons of which the hon. Gentleman will be aware, it became necessary to acknowledge it in the middle of 1983. After that it seemed reasonable and right to bring the practice at GCHQ into line with that at other intelligence agencies.

As someone who completely shares the Prime Minister's commitment to national security, may I tell her that civil servants at GCHQ have civil rights and that there is no justification for the removal of those civil rights because of anything that occurred in 1983, or before or since? As the Minister responsible for security matters, will she confirm now that she will belatedly meet the trade unions? Can she tell us how she will justify to them action that can only be described as dictatorial and not to be expected of a British Prime Minister? Was it not shameful and shamefaced—[Interruption.] It is a matter of basic civil rights for the people of this country. Loyal and patriotic civil servants are being abused by the Government. Is the shameful and shamefaced decision on GCHQ not just another pathetic example of the way in which the right hon. Lady is willing to surrender British interest to American pressure?

I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. There was no American intervention of any kind in this decision. The reasons were as I have given. They were heightened by the fact that in national Civil Service strikes in 1979 and 1981 there was a strike by certain services at GCHQ. It is absolutely vital that, where we are dealing with that kind of intelligence, the operation is continuous 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. That is a heightened reason for taking the action we took. There is no new point of principle. It is bringing practice at GCHQ into line with that at other intelligence agencies.

On the subject of American pressure, I wish that we had a polygraph here, no matter how unreliable they are. If there was no American pressure, does that not make the Government's decision even less easy to defend? For 40 years these highly trained and highly dependable civil servants have given continuous service. Where is the evidence that the withdrawal of the right to belong to a trade union can secure or guarantee continuity without strike or disruption if workers in a democracy have a justifiable grievance at their place of work?

I find what the right hon. Gentleman said about my comments about the United States very offensive. There was no intervention of any sort. The action that we have taken was reasonable once the intelligence agency was avowed. It was even more necessary because of the fact that GCHQ was selected — it has many computers — for special action by a national Civil Service union. That will not occur again when one has an association of people who work at GCHQ. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman places great importance on the security of the United Kingdom. I cannot stress too much that it is vital that this operational agency be kept going 24 hours a day and 365 days a year.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that this country is worth defending, and that one of the most important reasons for so doing is the range of liberties that are exercised by its citizens? Why is she slurring civil servants, if she is so easily offended herself, by making the accusation that they cannot be depended upon to give the continuity of work upon which Britain's security depends?

I am not slurring civil servants. The previous Labour Government did not slur the other intelligence services by denying those who worked in them the right to belong to a trade union. The denial of that right has always been accepted. It was through the circumstances of a security commission report that I avowed the work of the intelligence agency at GCHQ. All Governments have accepted that members of the security force should not belong to national trade unions. I believe that that has been a correct decision and it is one which we have now followed. The workers at GCHQ will still have rights of representation by a staff association. They will be able to appeal to the Civil Service appeals procedure, which many civil servants already use in preference to industrial tribunals.

The Prime Minister must be more aware than most in the House that it is quite unrealistic to compare MI5 and MI6 with the establishment at Cheltenham. Does she agree that one can have a certificate of exception under the employment protection legislation and retain membership of a trade union? Is she aware that the objection to her proposal is that she has exempted trade unionists? It would be possible to achieve a no-strike agreement. Membership of a staff association does not prevent striking. Does the right hon. Lady accept that, in the national interest, it would have been far better to concentrate on achieving a no-strike agreement, which is a legitimate security demand?

As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, it is vital that the agency is kept going at all times if we are to have the secure intelligence that we need. That is vital for Britain's security. If the civil servants were able to join a national trade union, that union could draw them out on strike even if there were no dispute between the employers at GCHQ and the workers. That is what happened in 1979 and 1981, when some 10,000 working days were lost. That may happen again if the civil servants belong to a national trade union. As I have said, that did happen. A no-strike agreement for a particular section would not deal with the problem of union officers outside GCHQ having to negotiate on behalf of staff about whose detailed work they could not be fully informed.

In view of the Prime Minister's anxiety about trends in welfare spending, as reflected in her interview with the New York Times, will she say what long-term consideration is being given to the future of the welfare state and, in particular, whether there is a possibility of the introduction of a tax credit scheme?

The trends in welfare spending are affecting all OECD countries. The OECD has put out useful papers, one of which, this year, is a summary of a much longer one issued last year. It will be discussed at the next OECD meeting in Paris. The real problem in this country will come when the earnings-related pensions begin to mature. Hon. Members will remember that the scheme was started in 1978 and that it matures in 1998. We run a scheme which is pay-as-you-go, so the money is being paid in and paid out in the same year, and a capital fund is not accruing. We must look at it in good time.

If, as the Prime Minister implied a few moments ago, apparatus of the utmost national security and importance at Cheltenham has been either not operated continuously or disconnected, would it not be wholly inappropriate to describe such action as industrial action, and much more appropriate to describe it as treason? In those circumstances, is not my right hon. Friend's action wholly justifiable?

It is part of my task to see that this country obtains the necessary intelligence for security purposes. I believe that the action we have taken will help to achieve that objective.

Is it not clear that those employed—[Interruption]

Order. I have been dealing very fairly with the House. I called a great many hon. Members from the Opposition Benches, and I am now balancing up.

Is it not clear that those employed at the Government communication headquarters at Cheltenham are just as much in the front line as our armed forces? Is it not true that the Foreign Secretary, who put forward these measures, is acting under the Employment Protection Act introduced by the Labour Government for precisely this purpose? Is it not clear that Labour Members have not a leg to stand on in this regard?

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is correct. The action was taken under certain sections of the Employment Protection Act which exist for that purpose.

Is the Prime Minister aware that I agree that it is absolutely necessary to keep GCHQ going but that I believe that the action Government took is wrong? The right hon. Lady calls in aid what happened in 1981. I have checked Hansard for those years, and I find that the former Secretary of State, Sir John Nott, made it absolutely clear that the strike had not in any way affected the operational capability in any area. He went on to praise the loyalty of the Civil Service. [Interruption.] What evidence is there that, in 1981, the GCHQ was made inoperable by this trade union?

The evidence is that some 10,000 working days were lost in intelligence signals operations, where it is absolutely vital to have continuity. As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, a number of people were out on strike then and we do not know what information we lost.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

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

When the Prime Minister talks, rightly, about the need to maintain operations at GCHQ, why does she not think about the morale of the staff who have been affected by this decision—the thousands of loyal civil servants? Does she realise that this comes on top of the attempt to impose the notoriously inaccurate polygraph system in the pilot scheme at GCHQ, instead of spending money on the employment of sufficient people to carry out the security measures that are really needed?

The polygraph experiment was advocated by the Security Commission and its recommendation of a pilot experiment was accepted. Some of the employees found other methods of searching even more offensive and did not take to them. Moreover, due to the numbers employed, it was not possible to carry out the type of searches that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when a group of Members of Parliament visited Greenham common earlier this week, Labour Members chose to posture outside in front of television cameras rather than attend briefings on the facts?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that after the visit he and other Conservative Members who attended the briefing will be able to help to get the facts out. All of our people realise that this is part of the deterrent which defends Britain's freedoms.