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 Norther Ireland.

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

Since I last answered questions on 23 February there have been five deaths in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. Two were part-time soldiers of the Ulster Defence Regiment, one was a former member of the UDR, one was a member of the prison service and one was a civilian. In the same period 52 people have been charged with terrorist offences, and 16 weapons, 3,997 rounds of ammunition and 1,191 lb of explosives have been recovered.

What progress is the Secretary of State making in ascertaining the motives of the instigators of the murder of the deputy governor of the Maze prison?

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, a number of people have been charged with offences connected with that murder. As the matter is now sub judice, I shall not say anything further.

s: What report can the Secretary of State make to the House on the fiasco of attempts to close cross-border crossings? Have these attempts now been abandoned in deference to representations made to him by the Irish ambassador?

The answer to the second part of that question is no, Sir. The further closure of border crossings is being considered and kept under review. Of the total number of border crossings between Northern Ireland and the Republic, about half are closed.

Is the Secretary of State aware that my constituents were considerably heartened by his frankness—if not his message—during his recent television interview, when he said that border security had never been good? Will he now tell us in general terms what steps he hopes to take to improve border security? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not put the House off with the usual answer that it is a matter for the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable. It is the Secretary of State's responsibility.

Yes, I fully accept that it is my responsibility. However, operational duties are the responsibility of the GOC and the Chief Constable. Border security is never as good as I would wish. The problem is not only border security, but the internal security of Northern Ireland.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is great concern among the border community about what is taking place? Is he further aware that what happened after Darkley has now been reversed and we have returned to a pre-Darkley position? Will the right hon. Gentleman respond to the representations made to him by members of many sections of the community in Northern Ireland that certain crossings should be closed and intersections along the border manned to prevent terrorists from the Republic coming in and doing their diabolical deeds?

It is not true to say that security force levels are back to their pre-Darkley levels. Additional forces are deployed, mostly in a covert manner, in those areas.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the number of people who have been charged. Will he give an undertaking that they will be brought to trial within a reasonable time and that we shall not have internment by stealth, which seems to be the result of the figures published yesterday of the number of people who have been detained for long periods?

This is a matter of great concern. It is one not directly for me, but for the judicial authorities. Every effort is made to bring people to trial as quickly as possible, but there are a number of problems—not least the desire of defendants to choose particular counsel and the availability of counsel. However, I assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that I am doing all that I can to ensure that there is a speed-up in some of these remand cases.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that not one person who is wanted by the RUC for the murder of a member of the security forces, or what the courts in the Irish Republic call "a political crime", has yet been extradited to Northern Ireland? Will he welcome extradition where it has taken place, but continue to press for full extradition in respect of these other crimes? Is he aware of the danger of being too overjoyed at getting one swallow, even if it is a very nasty one?

I cannot answer offhand the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but if he tables a question I shall have the facts looked at. I very much favour extradition and am always drawing that to the attention of the Republic, but we should at least welcome what has happened in this case.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that closing roads is only a minor inconvenience to terrorists who can cross fields on foot or by tractor, while it is a real problem to legitimate travellers who travel openly on public highways? Will he consider whether the irritation and loss of good will may not be worth more to the terrorists than they lose?

All these matters must be taken into consideration. We must also bear in mind that if a border crossing is closed and subsequently reopened, there is no point in closing it in the first place unless security forces are manning the closure. If the security forces are manning a closure, there is not much point in making the closure in the first place.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recent US air force purchase of Shorts' Sherpa aircraft.

I am sure that the whole House will have shared in the general delight at Shorts winning this valuable order for 18 aircraft from the US air force. Most importantly in the Northern Ireland context, it should provide some 500 or 600 new jobs. The stringent standards applied by the American armed forces are well known and, therefore, their order is also a particularly notable endorsement of Shorts' production capability and expertise. I hope that the contract will pave the way for further orders from the American as well as from other air forces. I should also like to pay full tribute to the company's work force and management, whose record of performance and painstaking efforts have been essential to securing this order.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is enormously good news for the Province at this difficult time and is a great tribute to the quality of the design and production work force at Shorts in producing an aeroplane that the Americans are prepared to buy? That is particularly so in view of the rather unpleasant and partisan attitude of certain members of the United States Congress who tried to suggest that, for religious reasons, Shorts was unable to produce this aeroplane in the right manner. Does this not prove that British Aerospace as an industry is better than similar industries anywhere else in the world?

I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said. It was most satisfying that the attack by the Irish national caucus was beaten off and that it was possible to demonstrate clearly that Shorts' recruitment procedures were non-discriminatory.

I welcome the Minister's statement. How many new jobs will arise as a result of the contract? Will he assure the House that there will be no lowering of standards of new applicants for enrolment in that company and that there will be no positive discrimination against any coomunity in Northern Ireland?

There will be no positive discrimination or quotas. It is important that the recruitment procedures should be totally open and that fair opportunities are provided for all members of the community. I am confident that that will be done. The contract will mean that 500 or 600 new jobs will be provided. That is significant, because it represents about 0·5 per cent. of the total manufacturing work force in Northern Ireland.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the order from the United States air force—we know how difficult it is to obtain orders from it—clearly shows that, when British companies manufacture the right products at the right price, there is always a market for those products?

Yes, Sir.

Is it likely that Short Bros. will get further work from the same source?

The United States air force holds options for a larger number of these aircraft. Obviously, Shorts will be going out to win those as well, if possible.

The Opposition share in the pleasure about this order. The United States Government made a detailed check on Shorts fair employment activities and were pleased with what they found. Will the Minister assure the House that the British Government will be equally stringent in checking before giving orders to Northern Ireland companies?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little off course. Investigations were carried out by the Fair Employment Agency, which was set up not on behalf of the United States Government, but under the statute passed by Parliament in 1976. That agency operates throughout the Province and is free to act where it wishes in regard to any companies. I assure the House that the Government do everything possible to ensure that fair employment practices do operate.

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

The future of the Assembly will be determined by the Members elected to it. The Assembly offers a framework in which those elected representatives can pursue the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, but it cannot be sustained idefinitely if the majority of them continue to refuse to take part.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to scotch the rumour of an option of joint sovereignty in Northern Ireland? Will he confirm that the Government believe this to be a non-starter?

The Government remain committed to the principle of self-determination, which was given statutory effect in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The results of the Assembly election and the general election demonstrate that a majority of voters favour the maintenance of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.

Will the Secretary of State share with the House the views that he did not feel he ought to divulge to American journalists for fear that Unionists would—I use his terms—jump over the wall?

Many things make Unionists jump over the wall.

Will my right hon. Friend stick to his policy of moving more Government decision-making to Ulster and the Assembly? Is it not desirable to have a high degree of local autonomy and control? Will my right hon. Friend go further and accept that the logical outcome of such a process might be an independent Ulster—a solution favoured by some hon. Members?

I think that there is a great deal to be said for more devolved government in Northern Ireland, but it would have to be on the basis that this is acceptable to the community as a whole.

Is it not a fact that the minority community will take no part in this Assembly because it distrusts the Assembly and knows that it will be defeated continually by the Unionists? Is it not also a fact that the All Ireland Forum does not have the Northern Ireland Unionists in it for the same reason? Even though the other side is not represented in each of those bodies, should we still not examine with some care, and possibly in a constructive way, what is said in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and in the Forum in Southern Ireland?

Yes, Sir; certainly both.

Are there members of the religious minority in the Assembly at present? Have not the Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, through constructive work there, confounded the critics of the Assembly? Does the Secretary of State welcome the fact that next week it will be having its 100th sitting?

Yes, I think that the Assembly has done a great deal of very useful work, and I warmly applaud the part taken in it by many Assemblymen. I confirm that members of the minority community are playing an active part. I just wish that there were more.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, when he next meets the Prime Minister of Ireland, he will discuss security.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will meet the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland after the report of the All Ireland Forum comes out to discuss issues which affect Northern Ireland.

I have at present no plans to meet Dr. FitzGerald. But, when we do next meet, I would expect to discuss a range of matters of common concern, amongst which security would feature.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the price of improving security in Northern Ireland and reducing the number of lives lost there is to allow the Republic of Ireland a greater say in the affairs of Ulster, that is a price that an increasing number of people in this country are willing to pay?

I have noted very carefully the views of my hon. Friend and of others of my hon. Friends.

May I ask the Secretary of State, first, why he has taken these two questions together? One is a narrow question on security, and the other is a very broad question on the All Ireland Forum. Therefore, may I address myself to my question? Although the other one is very important, they are separate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] Never mind "Get on with it." I shall say what I want to say.

Order. I have called the hon. Member to deal with his question No. 10.

I was doing that, Mr. Speaker. The interruptions came from Conservative Members. I want the right to ask my question. Therefore, may I ask the Secretary of State, despite the interventions from two sources, what he will discuss, when the All Ireland Forum report comes out, other than security if, within that report, there is a suggestion that all-Ireland questions—not only those concerning Northern Ireland—could be found to be relevant to the cause of democracy in Northern Ireland which is so sadly lacking at present?

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he thinks that his question should not have been taken with the other one. However, the two questions do have a marked similarity.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) has delivered a calculated insult to the long-suffering, citizens of Northern Ireland by his reference in the question to the Prime Minister of Ireland? Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that Northern Ireland is as much a part of the United Kingdom as England, Scotland and Wales, over which neither Garret FitzGerald, nor any other Irish Republican Prime Minister has any jurisdiction?

All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that in the House we are entitled to hold our own views, whether or not they are liked in all parts of the House. This is part of the United Kingdom Parliament and, as such, hon. Members can express their views.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the possibility of achieving any political progress or success in Northern Ireland is increasingly remote unless steps are taken towards having closer ties with the Republic of Ireland? When the Forum proposals are published, does the Secretary of State intend to give the most serious consideration to them and to follow them up with a meeting with the Irish Prime Minister?

Of course we shall give serious consideration to the proposals, but as Opposition Members recognise, they must be seen on the basis of the consent of the Northern Ireland people, on which the Opposition have always taken the same view as we have.

I recognise that anything coming out of the Forum has no official standing on this side of the water, but will my right hon. Friend take what steps he can to ensure that anything worth while is given adequate consideration by all relevant parties over which he has control?

Yes, Sir.

Is the Secretary of State's impression the same as mine: that the great majority of people in both traditions are fed up to the eyebrows with the spite, suspicion and back-biting within constitutional politics and with the terrorism outside? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what people want from their political leaders is the vision to make a new beginning? If so, has he made known to the Forum that it has a great opportunity to set an example in understanding and generosity? If that is forthcoming, will he encourage the leaders in the Loyalist tradition to respond?

I hope that there will be a response from everyone who has the true interests of all Northern Ireland people at heart. Often it seems that the only point on which the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland or their leaders can agree is to attack the Secretary of State.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

This takes up time. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to give notice that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment?

It is connected with the question.

Not at this stage. I shall take points of order at the end of Question Time.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Questions Nos. 5 and 10 were taken together. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) got it right for once when he talked of——

Order. I am not responsible for what was said by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). The hon. Gentleman's point of order must be addressed to the Chair.

rose——

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough must sit down. Points of order must be for me. I cannot allow an extension of Northern Ireland questions. We did extremely well today to deal with 22 questions.

rose——

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is correct for once—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough must sit down. I must say to the whole House that we have a very important foreign affairs debate in front of us. It is rare to have such an opportunity. Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. I cannot accept points of order of a frivolous nature, which have nothing to do with me.

It is not a frivolous point of order.

rose——

I must say to the hon. Member for Antrim, North that his point of order must be one on which I can rule.

rose——

I have not finished my point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down.

Question No. 5 on today's Order Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), refers to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland meeting the "Prime Minister of Ireland." That is incorrect, as there is no Prime Minister of Ireland. The leader of the hon. Gentleman's party is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!] It is a pity that she is not Prime Minister of Great Britain and the whole of Ireland. Nevertheless, the question is inaccurate. It should refer to the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic.

I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. Does the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough wish to raise a point of order on which I can rule?

Questions Nos. 5 and 10 are entirely different. My question No. 10 deals with the broad political situation whereas question No. 5 relates only to the security situation, important though that is. It seems singularly unfortunate that the two questions were taken together, as people were forced to come in on No. 5 who wished to come in only on question No. 10.

That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman said when he asked his supplementary question. I told him then that he would no doubt receive an answer to it from the Secretary of State, as indeed he did.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to publish the recent unemployment figures in the Province.

The Northern Ireland unemployment figures at 9 February were published in both Northern Ireland and United Kingdom press notices released on 1 March. The next set of figures will be published on 29 March.

Is the Minister aware that in June 1979 the unemployment figure for the Province was 59,600 and that by February this year it had grown to 122,357? Is he further aware that unemployment in Northern Ireland has risen from 10·4 to 22 per cent.? Is that not an appalling record for the Government, particularly since over 23,000 people have been unemployed for up to two years and 20,538 for more than three years? Are the figures not an indictment of the Government's policies in Northern Ireland?

The figures are a reflection of the seriousness of the situation. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman gains by drawing attention to the figure of 10 per cent. or more in 1979, because that was way above the standard in Great Britain. It shows that at that time the problems in Northern Ireland were very much worse than in the United Kingdom on average, as they are today. That is why the Government, and their predecessors, put in a large amount of public money and effort in other directions to try to overcome the problems.

Does the Minister realise that that is a pathetic answer in view of the Labour Government's record in Northern Ireland? Has the hon. Gentleman considered the employment potential of an energy conservation scheme for housing in Northern Ireland? If not, why not?

We have an energy conservation scheme. I have announced new measures, which are one part of the whole story. Energy costs in Northern Ireland are higher than elsewhere. If the hon. Gentleman wants to trade the performance of one Government against another, I remind him that, although for part of the Labour Government's time there was a subsidy to keep energy costs down, it was not as great as the present subsidy which keeps costs down to the highest level operating in Great Britain.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had on the fundraising activities of Noraid; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are concerned about any form of support that may be given to terrorist organisations, and my right hon. Friend spoke to the American ambassador about these matters recently. The Government are grateful for the recent forthright condemnation of terrorism in Northern Ireland by President Reagan.

As the Under-Secretary has apparently arranged for Senator Gary Hart to visit this country shortly, where he will, of course, be welcome, would my hon. Friend consider it appropriate, in view of the temptation for presidential candidates to pander to ethnic minorities during presidential election year, to suggest not only to Senator Hart but to all of them that they have no more business meddling in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland than we have, shall we say, meddling in the internal affairs of Puerto Rico?

I think that my hon. Friend may have somewhat exaggerated my influence over some of these matters. When political leaders from any part of the world come to this country we take every opportunity to explain to them the facts of life about Northern Ireland.

My hon. Friend will have noted that Dr. FitzGerald had the courage to go on American television to condemn those who subscribe to Noraid for the purchase of arms to be used against our people in Northern Ireland. I am sure my hon. Friend will advocate the congratulations of the House for the courage of Dr. FitzGerald in that respect.

There is nothing new about Dr. FitzGerald expressing his revulsion, as he described it, at the activities of the IRA and those who, by any means, lend it support. We are grateful for this most recent example of that expression.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent consultations he has had with representatives of political parties in Northern Ireland.

Since I last answered questions I have met the leaders of the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party and other elected representatives from the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.

Since legislative devolution does not appear to be imminent, will my right hon. Friend share with the House the result of his consideration of the proposals of the Ulster Unionist party for administrative devolution?

The Ulster Unionist party has not put forward to me firm proposals on devolution. Therefore, I am not in a position to share them with the House. If parties have views that they wish to put to me in a formal way they are always welcome to do so, but the right place for these discussions to take place to start with is in the Assembly.

Was it not the Stormont Administration that caused the trouble in the 60s and before? Will the right hon. Gentleman be very careful when he talks in terms of administrative devolution, because that might be a backdoor way of returning to the awful practices of old?

These are very much the sorts of problems that there are in this and other proposals. That is why they need to be discussed in the Assembly. They need to secure a degree of cross-community support or, in other words, widespread acceptance.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will use the same criteria throughout the system when schools are rationalised.

Yes, Sir. It has always been made clear that rationalisation of school provision should be examined by all school authorities, having regard to the same educational criteria.

Is the Minister prepared to accept that in working-class areas of Belfast, particularly in South Belfast and around Park Parade, they see a different set of criteria, used to favour middle-class, so-called integrated education, where a school with a smaller number on the rolls is being given Government backing whereas one with a larger number of pupils is being closed?

I am aware that integrated education is not in everybody's favour in Northern Ireland at the moment. Lagan college, the school to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, has entry in only three forms for secondary provision but is well set to reach the level of enrolment that will fully justify the provision of a curriculum suitable to the needs of those children. There is no such future for Park Parade.

Is it not a fact that the number of students at Park Parade school is greater than the number attending Lagan college and that when houses are built in the area by the Housing Executive and by housing associations there will be more children available to attend that school? Can the Minister tell us whether he is signing an order to make the Gaelic-speaking school a maintained school?

What I am concerned with is the viability of the schools and their ability to offer the children who attend them a viable curriculum. I am satisfied that Lagan college will be able to do that. Having looked at all of the evidence, including that of the Housing Executive, I am not satisfied that Park Parade will be able to do so. My Department is still considering the development proposal for Bunscoil Ghaeleagh.

Is the Minister aware that many people in Northern Ireland wish every success to Lagan college, which is making a brave attempt to bring about integration in Northern Ireland?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment. All of those who have been behind the project for Lagan college, particularly the principal, and who have worked hard to establish its viability, deserve our congratulations.

In view of the Minister's encouraging comments about Lagan college, may I ask whether he thinks that the experiment can be monitored to see whether it could be extended?

The Department monitors the development of all schools in Northern Ireland and we shall certainly look at Lagan college. The Government have always said that if there is a widespread demand in an area for integrated education they would support it.

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 what changes there have been in the security situation since 1 December 1983; and if he will make a statement.

I refer my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) earlier today. Since 1 December 1983 there have been 25 deaths in incidents connected with the security situation in Northern Ireland.

What representations has my right hon. Friend's Department received from the Irish ambassador in London about the closure of border roads in Fermanagh, and what action has been taken as a result?

The Irish ambassador made representations about the closure of the three crossings and we told him, as we told the Irish Government, that where there was a necessity to make closures, we would carry them out.

As the Army is the security force responsible for the defence of the frontiers of the United Kingdom, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain why, since 1 December 1983—since when there has been an increase in the number of terrorist attacks—there has been a reduction in the Army presence along the border?

It would be wrong of me to give any indication of the numbers of troops used along the border, because some would be in an overt capacity and some in covert positions. However, I assure the House that there are no reductions in troops operating in the border area.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the anxiety in Belfast, particularly among staff at the Royal Victoria hospital, over the fact that, until even 11 o'clock last evening, Sinn Fein supporters were patrolling in level 2 because they did not trust the security forces? Why has this state of affairs been allowed to continue, to the annoyance of the staff?

That is a matter for the RUC, which is in control of what happens at the hospital.

Why was a similar situation allowed to exist at the Ulster hospital, when a terrorist who was taken into that hospital was guarded by Sinn Fein members, and when every person entering the hospital to go to that ward was followed in by two members of Sinn Fein?

I am told that that is quite untrue and that the RUC has been in charge on all occasions.

As the security situation has obviously had some effect on the morale of prison staff, may we be told how many ministerial visits there have been to the Maze prison since the escape last year?

I cannot say offhand, but I have visited the Maze prison, as has the Under-Secretary, on at least one occasion within the last three weeks, and we shall be making frequent visits to the prison when we think that there is need to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to meet the Government of the Irish Republic once the proposals of the forum are published.

I met the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Irish Republic on 16 March and I expect to meet him or other Ministers from time to time within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Inter-governmental Council to consider matters of common concern.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many domiciliary visits were made in 1984 to date by officials of the Northern Ireland Office to Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Two, Sir. The meeting places were mutually agreed for the convenience of those concerned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not embarrassed by the fact that officials of his Department intervened with members of political parties in Northern Ireland in a way which would not be tolerated or even imagined in the rest of the United Kingdom?

The answer to that is no, because they did not intervene in that particular manner. These were specific requests, which dealt with two particular marches at Ballynahinch, and that remains the position. Officials of my Department have instructions that, if they visit people to inquire about these matters, it will be in order and right of those inquiries always to be reported to the leaders of political parties.

If the Secretary of State believes that, he obviously has no knowledge of visits that were made, among others, to myself, prior to the setting up of the Assembly, when certain incentives were held out by officials from the Northern Ireland Office for me to give whole-hearted support to the Assembly.

This may be a matter entirely of the hon. Gentleman's subjective judgment.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to receive the Baker report about the Emergency Provisions Act; and if he will make a statement.

I have just received the report of Sir George Baker's comprehensive and thorough review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. I am extremely grateful to him for the care and energy with which he has undertaken the task. Arrangements are now being made to print the report and I hope that it will be possible to publish it before the Easter recess.

Will the Secretary of State ensure—although this may not be within his power—that there is an early debate in the House on the provisions of the Baker report? Will he also give some indication whether the report will lead to any new legislative proposals by the Government?

On the second point, I think that we had better wait until the report is published. The first point is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I would have thought it better to wait for a few weeks, at any rate, before discussing the report in the House.

When the Secretary of State brings the report before the House, will he bear in mind that this is a terribly long time for emergency legislation to have been in effect? Will he examine it carefully to see whether he can make radical changes in the present legislation, particularly in view of its devastating effect on all parts of the community, not least on confidence in the rule of law?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is now prejudging the report.

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

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) earlier today.

Following an answer that he gave me the other day, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite rumours to the contrary, the Ulster Defence Regiment has an important and continuing role to play in security in Northern Ireland?

Yes, Sir. I would like to make it absolutely clear that the UDR has an important role to play in the security of Northern Ireland. The whole House, I think, warmly applauds the bravery and courage that its members have shown in carrying out their duties.

In view of the recent developments in conection with the McConnell murder, is the Secretary of State satisfied with the vetting procedure for civil servants employed on the security side of the Civil Service?

This is a matter that needs to be kept under constant revision. Generally speaking I am satisfied, but obviously we must look at our procedures again.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement indicating the measures which have been taken by the Department of Education and the Department of Economic Development to ensure that there are appropriate educational and training provisions for 17-year-olds in Larne.

The only, but very important, measure taken jointly by these two Departments has been the youth training programme, which was introduced in 1982. Although unemployed 17-year-olds do not have the guarantee of a YTP place, a range of training places are provided in Larne to cater for as many eligible 17-yearolds as seem likely to apply.

Does the Minister of State accept that it is not good enough to say that sufficient places are provided for the number of young people who are likely to apply? Is he aware that, despite the fact that representations have been made, that proposals have been submitted and that there has been criticism in the youth training programme plan, 1983–84, about the absence of opportunity, no real action has been taken to make proper provision for 17-year-olds? Will he give me an assurance today that he will look at the proposals presented by Larne college of further education for the provision of a work preparation unit for 17-year-olds?

I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I think that the number of places available is sufficient. If doubt emerges about that, we shall have to consider the matter again. I shall let the hon. Gentleman have full details of the way in which places are made available.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the present level of security in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I have already given.

In an earlier answer the Secretary of State said that he was giving consideration to the position that now exists as a result of the fiasco over the closure of cross-border roads. As a result of that reconsideration, has he scored off the list any of the roads that were formerly to be blocked? Will he explain to the right and learned Member for Worley, West (Mr. Archer) the effect that the blocking of a cross-border road has on terrorists, for example, who are fleeing by car to the Republic, as they would have to abandon the vehicle at the road block and have difficulty getting another?

I did not hear part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The best thing that I can do is write to him about it.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 March.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. I shall also have the great pleasure of making a presentation to your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, to mark his distinguished service to this House.

Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity during the course of the day of getting in touch with the English Rugby Union and ask it to call off the proposed rugby tour of South Africa? Will she point out to it that such a tour will bring comfort to a morally repugnant regime while putting in danger the Commonwealth Games, which are planned to be held in Edinburgh?

As I have said in the House previously, the Gleneagles agreement has been affirmed. It is a voluntary agreement, but I must make it clear that we genuinely discourage the rugby tour of South Africa because of the damaging consequences that it will have for the Commonwealth and international sport. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport has made it clear that that is our view.

First, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on the firm stand that she took at Brussels? Does not the way in which the partners in the Community have withheld the funds to which we are already entitled demonstrate how right she is in pressing for a long-term, stable budgetary structure? At the same time, will she give the House an assurance that she will continue to negotiate patiently and that the Government do not contemplate any retaliatory, illegal action that might undermine our position, bearing in mind that the future of western Europe cannot be considered only in terms of nicely calculated "less or more"?

Like my right hon. and learned Friend, I regret that France and Italy have blocked, so far, our 1983 refunds. We have learnt this morning that the Presidency of the Community intends to hold a special meeting of Foreign Ministers in Brussels on Tuesday next on the basis of the texts that were on the table of this week's European Council. We welcome this initiative. In these circumstances, the Government will take no action that might damage the prospects of decisive progress next week. Our objectives in the negotiations will be to obtain an agreement that meets the requirements that I have outlined to the House. In the meantime, we shall not ask the House to consider a Supplementary Estimate for an advance payment to the Commission. We shall consider our position on that request in the light of the outcome of the meeting to which I have referred.

The news of the special meeting is welcome, but how many special meetings are there likely to be? As £500 million of our money is at stake and the strong need for fundamental reform is in question, is the Prime Minister going to go on as if nothing had happened?

I answered the right hon. Gentleman's question before he asked it, except that part in which he asked how many special meetings there will be, which by the very nature of the issue is entirely unpredictable. We learnt this morning that the Presidency intends to hold a special meeting. I said that the basis of the meeting will be the texts that were on the table at the end of this week's European Council. I hope that the progress that we have made will be taken further at that meeting. As the right hon. Gentleman is already aware, the refunds are not due, by agreement between us, until 31 March. I hope, therefore, that the meeting will unblock the refunds. I also hope that we will get a good deal further on a matter that was before us at Brussels, that is agreement on a system and amounts for a long-term settlement of the Community's budgetary problems.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 March.

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

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that in recent weeks hundreds of new jobs have been created in high technology in England, Scotland and Wales? Does that not further demonstrate that the economic recovery is under way?

That is very well demonstrated. The recovery will be considerably assisted by the Budget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented to the House a short time ago. Gross domestic product figures published on Tuesday show that average measures of GDP, as forecast by the Chancellor, rose 3 per cent. in 1983. It was recently announced that the United States company Commodore is to employ about 1,000 more people in Corby in a –20 million expansion which will make that Corby factory the biggest microcomputer plant in Europe.

Although I welcome the decision to meet on Tuesday and hope that it is possible to bridge the narrow divide on the Presidency text, is the Prime Minister aware that she did not answer the question posed by her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)? Surely the Cabinet has come to a conclusion on the constitutional impropriety of withdrawing any form of payment. Do the Government realise that that is not a lever in the negotiations, but a question of law and order? The House and the country are entitled to a clear-cut view from the British Cabinet that this is unconstitutional and will not be considered, and to an assurance that we will not see the Prime Minister "hotting" this issue up by reference to the acolythate press.

If anyone is hotting up the issue, it is the right hon. Gentleman. I gave the House the answer and informed hon. Members about the decision that was taken this morning. In the circumstances, the Government will take no action that might damage the prospect of decisive progress next week. Our objective in these negotiations will be to obtain an agreement that meets the requirements I outlined to the House. Why, then, is the right hon. Gentleman trying to "hot up" the issue?

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 March.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that long-term unemployment has risen from 375,000 in 1981 to almost 1·2 million today, which represents 40 per cent. of those unemployed? Is she aware that 600,000 people have been unemployed for more than two years and 300,000 for more than three years? Is she further aware that, of the unemployment total, 575,000 people are aged 50 and over and have little prospect of finding a job under the present Government? When will the Government recognise the plight of these unfortunate people and extend long-term supplementary benefit to them?

I am aware of some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The Government are aware of the arguments for extending the long-term rate to the unemployed who are under the age of 60. However, the cost would be £480 million, and for that reason alone it must be ruled out.

As a major American manufacturer is bidding against British industry to supply the Royal Navy with its primary surface weapon—the anti-ship missile—does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision on the contract must be taken not merely on marginal price comparison based on fanciful future exchange rate assumptions, but with regard to its impact on British jobs, British exports, British technology and British control of our major weapons systems?

No decision has been taken on which of the several contenders will be selected to meet the Royal Navy's requirement for a second-generation, surface-to-surface guided weapon. Tenders are still being considered by the Ministry of Defence and the Government will wish to take fully into account all relevant factors, including those mentioned by my hon. Friend, before making any announcement.

On the EC negotiations, is the right hon. Lady aware that her reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) will demonstrate to many people that, despite the rhetoric of resolution, the way has been prepared for another sell-out? As the idea of retaining our own funds has been described as unconstitutional, does the right hon. Lady believe that that is the case under the British constitution?

I am not prepared to give a legal opinion on a question that has not yet arisen and on a decision that has not yet been taken. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will approve the action that the Government are taking. As the Presidency of the Community, which was most helpful to us last week in trying to draft a system and in putting it to the Community, has called another meeting based on identical texts, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the best way forward is to try to seek the settlement that we want on our budgetary refunds and to try to secure at that meeting, in conjunction with a decision by the European Assembly, a decision to unblock the refunds, which we hope will be paid by 31 March.

Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity this morning to listen to the "Today" programme on which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) declared that he would have accepted the deal on offer in Brussels on Tuesday? Does that not confirm that if the alliance parties had had anything to do with such matters the gap would have been closed, not by skill, as was suggested yesterday by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), but by surrender?

I had exactly the same feeling when I heard exactly the same thing on exactly the same programme.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 March.

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

How does the Prime Minister serrate her stand on Britain's EC contributions and the suggestion of breaking European law with the hypocrisy of the attacks on Liverpool city council and her unwillingness to concede £30 million to the Liverpool people? Is she saying that another 5,500 jobless people in Liverpool do not worry her? Does she understand that the massive demonstrations on 29 March in Liverpool and elsewhere, and the struggle of the miners and other workers, are a complete refutation of the policies that she and her pathetic Government are pursuing?

I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Gentleman's entire question, but I understand that the first part was about the EC and the second part about Liverpool. Nothing that I said about the EC contravenes the law in any way. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has given me a chance to mention Liverpool. During the past three years capital expenditure in Merseyside, under the Department of the Environment's main programmes, has reached about £650 million. That is the measure of the support that has been given by the Government, or through the Government, to try to help matters in Liverpool.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm a report that has reached me that the British high commissioner in Lagos was recently attacked with a machete and that there has been a serious breakdown of law and order in the diplomatic quarter of Lagos, with four recent armed robberies? What representations has she made to the Government of Nigeria to ensure that security is restored in that area?

As my hon. Friend surmises, it is the duty of the host Government to protect those in the diplomatic services. Had there been any difficulty, I would have drawn that to the attention of the host Government. I shall inquire further into my hon. Friend's allegations.

Does the Prime Minister anticipate giving evidence shortly to the Select Committee on Members' Interests?

No, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 March.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest long-term economic indicator, which has risen for the fourth successive month, suggesting that economic recovery will continue well into 1985? Do not the indicator and the medium-term corporation tax strategy in the Budget make it clear that industry has more opportunity now to increase profits, investment and jobs than for many years?

I think that, on the basis of low inflation and the Budget announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor a few days ago, industry is better placed to recover, to make good profits, to expand and to give new jobs, than for a very long time. What is more, I believe that that recovery is sustainable. We have given a tremendous boost to jobs by taking off that terrible tax on jobs which was put on and increased by the Labour Government.