asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young offenders were detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure in prison establishments in Northern Ireland in each of the years 1972 to 1975, inclusive; and how many of them, respectively, have been subsequently released.

Twenty young persons were convicted and sentenced to be detained during the pleasure of the Secretary of State during this period: one in 1972, three in 1974 and 16 in 1975. Three have been released on licence, of whom two served nine years and four months and the third served 10 years four months.

Does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State agree that this type of sentence causes great psychological suffering to such young men, who have no means of knowing when they will be released, especially when they are aware that prisoners given fixed sentences have already been granted their freedom? Does he accept that such an anomaly is not in the interests of British justice?

By definition, all those sentenced in that way have been convicted of very serious crimes. Before releasing them we have to take account of the gravity of the offence, ensure that they have served a suitable period, and consider their behaviour in prison and the continued safety of the public.

Does the Minister agree that such a step could benefit prison administration, in that a prisoner who knows the date of his release and can work towards it is less likely to behave badly, knowing that it could affect his release date?

We are anxious to ensure that prisoners are told of their release date some time before they are released, so that they have that assurance and can take part in some sort of pre-release scheme to fit them for life outside prison.

Does the Minister agree that many of these young people were inveigled into serious crime at a time when tempers in Northern Ireland were running particularly high? Will he re-examine the review procedure for these young people and make a special case on their behalf?

What about the IRA?

We have not sought in our questions to differentiate between the types of prisoner detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure.

I welcome that comment. I am satisfied that we have the right machinery for keeping such cases under review. Youth at the time of a crime is one of the factors that I take into account when advising my right hon. Friend about release dates.

Does the Minister accept that some crimes, which cannot be excused, sometimes involve people who have only a low-key role in them but who are subjected to indeterminate sentences, while others involved in equally dastardly crimes are being released after remission?

Such matters are for the courts to decide. People convicted of murder are usually given an indeterminate sentence. We must be sure that the sentence served is commensurate with the gravity of the crime.

Will the Minister review sentencing practices in Northern Ireland, particularly for non-paramilitary offences? Is he aware of the concern about certain aspects of the criminal justice system as it relates to non-paramilitary offences?

That does not arise out of the question. I am not convinced that sentencing policy in Northern Ireland is out of line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

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

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

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

Since I last answered questions on 26 April there have been nine deaths in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. Three of those killed were civilians, one of whom was a member of the Territorial Army, two were part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, two were members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and two were soldiers. These last four were killed in two separate incidents on 18 May.

Does the Secretary of State agree that although he may continue to give us meaningless statistics, it is worth remembering that over 9,000 weapons have been captured in the last 12 years? Will he bear in mind that weapons continue to be available to terrorists who want to murder people along the frontier? Will the Secretary of State now change his mind—we know that he is capable of doing that frequently—and deploy more security forces along the frontier across which the weapons of war are brought into Northern Ireland?

I do not think that the statistics are meaningless. They speak volumes for the immense efforts made by the security forces, whether they are members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the British Army or the Ulster Defence Regiment. The Government's security policy is clear and firm. The security forces will continue to deal vigorously with all those who break the law in any way. If sometimes I change my mind, I am in good company with the Ulster Unionists.

In the light of the security statistics, is the Secretary of State aware of public opinion in Northern Ireland that a new initiative on security is necessary? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware of the deep apprehension in the Province at the prospect of a five-month period during which the Secretary of State says that he has nothing more to offer? Does he believe that in that time he can make some contribution by starting a new initiative on security?

There is widespread anxiety in the Province, as there has been for some time, on the question of security. I respond to that in any and every way that I can. I must tell hon. Members on both sides of the House that the problems in Northern Ireland will not be overcome by the security forces alone.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House sends its sympathy to the members of the security forces and police in Northern Ireland, who have done such a wonderful job? Is he absolutely sure that there is not more that the Government could do about many of the crimes that have occurred fairly near the border? Quite often, bombs are planted or exploded and those who do the deeds disappear across the border. Will my right hon. Friend look again at the Government's policy to determine whether a fresh approach should be made to Dublin with a view to tightening up cross-border security?

We are constantly looking for ways to do more, and we are constantly seeking to improve our cooperation with the Republic of Ireland, its police force and army. I lose no opportunity to discuss these matters with my opposite numbers in the Republic.

Does the Secretary of State consider that the officials in the Northern Ireland Office, whose disastrous advice he has followed with characteristic self-satisfaction and obtuseness for the past two and a half years, contemplate with any degree of satisfaction the bloody consequences of their achievements?

Disgraceful.

I find it almost impossible to reply to the right hon. Gentleman's words. They are so utterly disgraceful that, in a distinguished parliamentary career, he does himself no credit.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my hon. Friends admire the fortitude with which he has carried out his duties in Northern Ireland? We wish him well in the next few months in trying to secure peace for the two communities and in attempting to bring them together.

I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I dare say that over the years I have made many injudicious remarks, but I have always thought that frankness and candour were respected by the people of Northern Ireland. As such, I shall continue to be frank and candid.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious concern in my constituency about the continuing murder of civilians and members of the security forces? Is he further aware that two members of the Territorial Army and two members of the RUC were recently murdered in my constituency and that three members of the RUC mercifully escaped a murderous attack on them outside Armagh last week? What assurance can he give to me and my constituents today that the same will not occur this weekend?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I can give no such assurances. I hope he recognises, as his hon. Friends showed they recognised in their supplementary questions to the first question today, that the position in Northern Ireland, although a very long way from being normal, is a lot better than it was. We shall continue to do all that we can.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that we all congratulate the security forces on reducing the amount of explosives available to the terrorists? Can he give the figures for last year and this year? Has he had any indication whether the Libyans have carried out their threat to supply further arms to the terrorists in Northern Ireland?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot offhand give the figures for this year and last year, but we have had great successes in recent days, especially with explosives, which, perhaps more than anything, are causing us great concern.

Can the Secretary of State tell us of another country in the world where the Government allow their citizens so little protection while they wait for their turn to be murdered? I cite Sergeant Hillen of the UDR. Everyone in Northern Ireland, including the Government, knew that he would be murdered, but nothing was done to prevent it.

That is totally unfair and unworthy of the hon. Gentleman.

Did not this lame duck Secretary of State effectively resign from his position when he made his statement at the weekend? Would not any Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, regarding security or any other matter, have been rather more circumspect before engaging in a row with the Prime Minister—which can only detract from the job that the right hon. Gentleman is supposed to be doing?

I am certain that I have the confidence of the Government, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. I suspect that that is more than the hon. Gentleman can say about his leader.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government have had ample time to consider the report of Sir George Baker? Does he accept that even those of us who would like to see more extensive improvements than those recommended by Sir George regard this as a serious and careful report deserving of an early debate? Will he discuss that possibility with the Leader of the House?

I regard Sir George Baker's report as an important document which the House will wish to debate. I hope that in due course time will be made available for such a debate, and I shall convey the right hon. and learned Gentleman's request to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what talks he has had with political leaders in Northern Ireland since the publication of the report of the New Ireland Forum.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from political parties in Northern Ireland regarding any further political initiative by him since the publication of the report of the New Ireland Forum; what reply he has sent; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he plans to hold discussions with the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland concerning the implications for Northern Ireland of the recently published report of the New Ireland Forum.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received on the implications for Northern Ireland of the New Ireland Forum report.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had about the report of the New Ireland Forum; and if he will make a statement.

During the past three weeks I have met the leaders of each of the four main constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland to discuss a variety of matters. They and others I have met or who have written to me have expressed a range of views about the implications of the Forum report.

Noting the return of Official Unionists to the Northern Ireland Assembly, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give special consideration to the Ulster Unionist Assembly party's discussion paper, well-named "The Way Forward", and not dismiss it as he has sometimes dismissed similar ideas when put forward from the Benches behind him?

I have certainly not dismissed this report, which I regard as being encouraging both in its language and in the ideas that it puts forward. I shall never dismiss any suggestion or policy document which in any way starts, and helps to keep going, a political dialogue in the Province.

Will my right hon. Friend, who has many friends in this House, confirm that, while he will always listen politely to the views of friendly nations about United Kingdom matters, the paramount consideration of this House will always be the democratically expressed views of the people of Northern Ireland?

Yes; and I would make that absolutely plain at all times. The wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, in regard to their sovereignty and to whom they wish to belong, must be respected at all times.

Is it not a fact that very little is moving politically on the question of Northern Ireland? That fits in with what the right hon. Gentleman said about security not being everything and about there being other things as well. Does he agree that to be dismissive about a political attempt to try to solve the problem is useless, because at some time, as in any discussion, all the parties concerned must get round the table? Does he further agree, on reconsideration, that when he said that changing his mind made him similar in some ways to the Ulster Unionists, that was utter nonsense, for they do not change their minds; they are utterly intransingent and do not want to discuss the issues at all?

I long for the time when the parties in Northern Ireland get round the table, discuss these matters among themselves and come to an agreement. That has so far proved to be very difficult to achieve.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the moderate, middle-of-the-road views tend less often to be represented directly to him and that such views are held by a substantial majority of people in this country and certainly in my constituency? Does he further accept that the New Ireland Forum report is at least a well-meaning attempt to bring about an improvement in the situation in Northern Ireland and that any failure to take it seriously would not only be condemned at home but would bring about justified criticism in the international community?

We are taking the report seriously and giving it proper consideration. In so far as it impinges on the sovereignty of Northern Ireland, we could not accept it. As the report recognises, any change must be made with the consent and agreement of the Northern Ireland people. We know that any change of that nature will not be forthcoming. We must, therefore, take that aspect into account in framing an answer to this serious document representing the views of the nationalist parties of Ireland.

Does the Secretary of State accept that when, earlier this week during a radio broadcast, he said that the time had come for a fresh mind to be brought in, many hon. Members recognised his frankness and candour and shared his judgment? Does he further accept that it is not possible to give any kind of leadership in this new situation in Northern Ireland when he is so undecided about what he has to offer?

It is not a question of whether I am decided or undecided. I must make it absolutely clear at all times that the policies pursued in Northern Ireland are those of the whole Government, not just of the Secretary of State. I know that the hon. Gentleman has wanted to get rid of me for some time—he may be right—but, while I am in this position, I shall do everything I can to help the sides in Northern Ireland to see a way forward for themselves.

As all the proposals in the New Ireland Forum report are based on a single objective—a united Ireland—which is anathema to the majority of the people in Northern Ireland, is the Forum not already a dead duck?

The word "duck" seems to have been used a lot this afternoon. I do not believe that the Forum is a dead duck. Parts of the Forum report go further, than any nationalists have gone before, in showing a much greater understanding of the Unionists, position in Northern Ireland. I believe that this is reciprocated to a certain extent by the Unionists' document, which shows a much greater understanding of the nationalist position than has been shown before. That should give us some ground for believing that we can make some progress.

How could anyone who is not a fool imagine that the prolonged and public flirtation of the Government with the irredentist operation in Dublin, known as the New Ireland Forum, could have any effect but to encourage the IRA in its terrorist and murderous activities?

When will the right hon. Gentleman realise that the IRA needs no encouragement? The IRA will take what action it can when it can. The right hon. Gentleman is under a total misapprehension if he believes that, simply by saying that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom for all time, the IRA will go away. It will not.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the solution to Northern Ireland's problems will come not from the Forum in Dublin, nor from London, but only from Northern Ireland people sitting down and discussing the problems? Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that the best opportunity for doing that lies within the Assembly and its Report Committee? Will he join me today in appealing to the SDLP to join the other parties which are now prepared to sit down and discuss the problem? What support can the right hon. Gentleman offer to the Report Committee?

The hon. Gentleman has made an important and sensible comment. The best people to make an approach to the SDLP are those in the Unionist parties of Northern Ireland. If they will show a willingness to understand the SDLP and its particular difficulties, we could make some progress. I am willing to do all that I can to help.

Will the Secretary of State undertake, when he next meets Dr. FitzGerald in London, to encourage him to ask the Government of the Irish Republic to remove their claim to sovereignty over Northern Ireland from the Irish constitution and so assist the discussions presently taking place within Northern Ireland?

I often mention that subject to anyone from the Republic of Ireland whom I meet, and it would do much good if it were carried out.

When my right hon. Friend met the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) in his capacity as leader of the SDLP, and bearing in mind that Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom, did he encourage the hon. Gentleman to spend more time in this House presenting the case of those he represents as the best way forward to help to increase the understanding of the legitimate concerns of the minority community in Northern Ireland?

It might be more appropriate if my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), did that, rather than me. I think that I have offered enough advice on this subject.

Will the Secretary of State recognise that while the unity of Ireland may be anathema to some people in Northern Ireland, it is certainly not anathema to the rest of the United Kingdom? Once the long-term aim of unity of Ireland is recognised, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is sufficient in the New Ireland Forum to provide for the preservation of the separate identity and cultural and religious traditions of Northern Ireland within that united Ireland?

The hon. Gentleman must also realise that his own party's policy is that there can be no change in the constitution of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people. He knows as well as I that that consent is simply not forthcoming. Therefore, we must work for structures within Northern Ireland which give to the minority community a fair share both in the arrangements that are made for the government of Northern Ireland and in the recognition of their Irish identity.

Is it not encouraging that the Official Unionist party has returned to the Assembly, despite the advice that it may Well have received in the tones that we have heard today, that it was foolish to do so? Is it possible to ask the Assembly whether it would be willing to take part in a discussion on the reaction to the Forum?

I very much welcome the return of the Unionist party to the Assembly even if, as I am sometimes told, it was brought about by my indiscretions. If that is the case, perhaps I had better create a few more. Let us hope that the Report Committee will go out of its way to try to recognise the legitimate rights of the minority, as the Unionist document has begun to do.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his remarks on Norfolk radio will have given comfort to many people who simply want to preserve the status quo? Are they not a broad indication that any attempt on his part to initiate discussions on the report will he lacking in authority and Cabinet support? Are not any talks beginning now likely to be concluded under a Secretary of State who will be much less sympathetic to progress? If that is not the proper construction to be placed on the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, will he seize this opportunity to say what inference should be drawn?

That certainly not the proper construction to be placed on my remarks. I reaffirm that the policy that the Secretary of State is asked to pursue is that of the Government. During my period of office I shall do all that I can to promote that policy. I see no earthly reason why that policy should not be one of continuity.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the report of the New Ireland Forum.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government policy toward the report of the New Ireland Forum.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the conclusions of the report of the New Ireland Forum.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the recent report of the New Ireland Forum.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has anything to add to his initial response to the report of the New Ireland Forum.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the report of the New Ireland Forum.

I have nothing to add to the statement I issued on 2 May, copies of which are available in the Library.

Will not all the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland be delighted if the British Government reject the Forum's report? Is there not a danger that the right hon. Gentleman's successor could well take a simplistic view and adopt the negative and dismissive attitude of the Ulster Unionists towards the Forum's report?

I reject the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The people who will object most strongly to any closer relationship with the Republic, particularly over security, are the IRA. That must always be borne in mind in everything that we say or do.

What are my right hon. Friend's views on the remarks of the distinguished commentator, Conor Cruise O'Brien, who said that any move towards an Irish aspect would be seen as a sign that the British will to remain in Northern Ireland was cracking under sustained IRA pressure and "Keep it up, boys"?

I quite understand the views which Mr. Conor Cruise O'Brien put forward. That is one of the great difficulties in making any sensible arrangement wth the Republic of Ireland, whether over security or any other matter. I say again that I believe that it is the people of Northern Ireland who must always make up their own minds about this matter and that they will do so regardless, perhaps, of the legislation 'we pass in this House.

Will my right hon. Friend remind unionists of all parties that there are some matters, particularly security, that should be dealt with on an all-Ireland basis? Will he also avoid any political initiatives that endanger the main objective, namely, that people and parties, dare I say, in Northern Ireland should learn to live together?

My hon. Friend's question illustrates only too well the tightrope that has to be walked the whole time in trying to deal wth matters in Northern Ireland, but I agree with his points.

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to accept the allegations contained in the report of continued discrimination against Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland?

I do not think there is any discrimination against Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland. The record of successive British Governments has been completely honourable in Northern Ireland, and one of which we can be justly proud. What we have done there for all sections of the community has been of immense benefit and has brought about immense change in Northern Ireland over the last few years.

Why should the Secretary of State or I take the report of the New Ireland forum seriously when none of its authors now agrees about the contents, when the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic and the Leader of the Opposition there disagree publicly about it, when the Leader of the Opposition in the Irish Republic has sacked one of his front benchers because he disagrees with him, and when the leader of the SDLP publicly disagrees with the deputy leader of the SDLP? As none of the participants seems to know precisely what the Forum was about, why should I or this House take its report seriously?

There is always a problem both in the north of Ireland and in the south in getting anyone to agree about anything.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that generally the response in the United Kingdom to the Forum report has been positive and constructive because many people see it as a blueprint for a closer dialogue with the South? Does he also agree that last week's tragic killings have overshadowed the report? Does he not think it is sad that those killings were carried out by faceless gunmen who have never believed in dialogue and democracy?

Yes, Sir. Of course, the purpose of all these dreadful murders is to prevent the making of any satisfactory arrangement that would bring peace to the people of Northern Ireland.

Will the Secretary of State accept that while it is right to be cautious—indeed, he has to be cautious in his response to the New Ireland Forum report —the report provides, if not a blueprint, at least an agenda for a process that is long overdue of genuine political dialogue about the future of Northern Ireland in relation to the Republic as well as to this country? Secondly, does he agree that the people of this country as a whole need to be represented in these matters and that it would be useful to establish a parliamentary forum as well as intergovernmental discussions and to use the Forum report as its agenda?

I think that the Forum report is an agenda that must be taken seriously. Whether it will lead to a parliamentary tier or grouping of any sort is a matter for Parliament. However, we must take it, examine it carefully and come forward with suggestions to meet it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the politicians and parties who have blocked all constitutional initiatives are in danger of losing the sympathy and respect of the House? Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the respect, support and confidence of this party in undertaking those initiatives?

There is an overwhelming desire in this Parliament, which I think is also portrayed in Northern Ireland by the people, that we should make every effort to arrive at a political solution which, while preserving the right of the people of Northern Ireland to decide for themselves to whom they wish to belong, gives proper recognition to the various needs of the two communities.

When, on Wednesday, the Secretary of State—apparently recognising his responsibilities—said that he owed it to the people of Northern Ireland to speak out plainly, what did he have it in mind to say? Did he not rather resemble the crumbling and self-absorbed King Lear when he spoke of doing such things that would be the "terrors of the earth" without knowing what they were?

I have never been a great expert on King Lear. However, I tell the people of Northern Ireland, as I tell the House, that everyone in Northern Ireland wants peace, but they all want it on their own terms. If we are to get peace, everyone must give up a little of his cherished views, because the end result is greater than the differences.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the real lesson to be learnt from his frustration during his time in office in Northern Ireland and the failure to get agreement on the New Ireland Forum report is that there is no way out of the present circumstances if we accept that the consent of the small majority in Northern Ireland is a veto to all progress? Is not the lesson that we must look to the opinion of the people of the whole of Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom to reunify Ireland, with its consent, just as Ireland was partitioned without the consent of the majority of the Irish people?

If the hon. Lady's policy were ever accepted, she would start a process of terrorist activity and civil war which she would certainly live to regret.

Does the Secretary of State intend to pursue his well-leaked suggestion for an all-Ireland approach to agriculture, the economy and some aspects of security?

That is pure speculation and has no regard to my view.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider introducing a scheme in Northern Ireland to purchase, and then redistribute, milk quotas from those who wish to retire from the industry.

Yes. A number of suggestions have been made by and on behalf of the industry, and we are considering them urgently.

I welcome the Minister's answer. Does he agree that the present quota system is biting deep for dairy farmers in Northern Ireland? Does he agree also that something must be done urgently to alleviate that, as those farmers must cut production, not by 9 per cent., but by 14 to 15 per cent.? Will something be done to relieve the problem quickly?

It is exactly because of the special problems of Northern Ireland that we are considering the type of measures to relieve some of the difficulties to which I have referred. I can go no further than that at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is now prepared to consider devolving responsibility for local government in Northern Ireland to the Province; and if he will make a statement.

The Government remain ready to look at any proposals for devolving powers which have the support of both parts of the community.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be difficult to introduce such proposals until parties in Northern Ireland, including the SDLP, the absence of which is noted, came to some agreement among themselves about what should be done, instead of using us and the Government as an excuse?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I long for the day that he described. I believe that the Official Unionists re-entry into the Assembly is a move and a sign in the right direction.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if any discussions have taken place regarding the position of chairman of the proposed new Northern Ireland Consumers Body.

No, Sir.

Will the Minister assure me that no improper influence will be brought to bear in filling this position, in view of the suggestion that a certain member of a political party is being considered for it?

The choice of chairman will be made in the normal way—that is, after full consultation. I am certain that no special influence will be allowed to be brought to hear.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what studies have been made by his Department of the effect of terrorism on inward investment in Northern Ireland.

There is no doubt that the image of Northern Ireland as a place beset by terrorism, however exaggerated or erroneous, is the biggest obstacle to investment from overseas. The most comprehensive and recent study on Northern Ireland's image was conducted for the Industrial Development Board in 1982 by MORI among British, United States and German business men and journalists. It showed that anxiety about political stability, with connotations of terrorism, was a major negative influence among potential investors. The findings from that survey were used in the development of the board's promotional strategy.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which I shall read in the Official Report tomorrow. Will he redouble his efforts to impress upon the people of Northern Ireland and the political parties that terrorism kills jobs as surely as it kills people, and that they cannot continue to seek ever-increasing economic support unless they are willing to make a political contribution to the defeat of terrorism, so that inward investment can flourish?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and further give my view, which is that the Provisional IRA and other groups who commit acts of terrorism are the enemies of the unemployed.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 May.

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.

In view of the breakdown in talks yesterday between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, will the Prime Minister shoulder her responsibility to reach a settlement in the national interest?

Towards the end of the meeting yesterday the NCB offered talks at senior level between the two s ides to discuss "Plan for Coal". I understand that the offer was followed up by a letter today which confirmed the statement made by Mr. Cowan at the meeting that talks with no conditions or prior commitments by either side could now take place about the principles of "Plan for Coal" in relation to the future of the industry. I understand that words were used to the effect that such talks might offer the prospect of finding a solution to the present problems, and that Mr. Cowan's offer to talk at any time without preconditions about these problems was confirmed. I understand from the news at lunchtime today that that offer was taken up. That is good news.

It is a victory.

I also understand that from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is muttering below the Gangway. He confirms it, but whether that means it must be right, I do not know.

It means that we have won.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the events of the last 24 hours in the House show Labour's leadership to be at best non-existent, at worst an utter shambles and that the phrase "in-out" applies not only to Labour's Common Market policy but to whoever happens to be jumping in and out of their place at the Dispatch Box.

I agree with my hon. Friend. With regard to what happened yesterday, the Opposition made a muck of it.

I welcome the change in the Prime Minister's attitude towards conciliation in the coalmining dispute. I hope that she will do all she can, since she has extensive powers in these matters, to promote constructive discussions about the dispute.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the rules for supplementary benefit are set out in legislation, and there is a right of appeal to independent statutory authorities on any decision. The legislation is not waived, but is carried out exactly as it has always been.

That was a stiff answer of extraordinary insensitivity to families in real difficulties. Does the Prime Minister understand that discretion can be exercised to support expectant mothers, to ensure that people receive their Girocheques on time, and to ensure that those who receive food parcels do not lose their entitlement to supplementary benefit? I ask her again: will she ensure that the discretion that exists under the law is exercised in favour of people who are destitute?

The discretion is in the law.

The right hon. Gentleman does not have the fundamental facts. The law on supplementary benefit is set out in orders passed by the House. Politicians cannot determine how much an individual receives, and it would be completely wrong if they could. Appeals can be made to independent statutory authorities, which then determine the case if anyone expresses dissatisfaction with the amount he has received. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a politician can bend the law at will, chat is the end of the law.

It is the right hon. Lady's law.

The right hon. Lady sounds like a bureaucratic tape recorder. She knows very well that, within the law and with no politician bending it, it is possible for local officers to help people in need, including pregnant women, the elderly and the poor. Will she act like a human being and say that she wants that discretion to be exercised so that people in need can be helped?

Shouting from the Dispatch Box will not alter the law. The law is not my law, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said from the Front Bench, but the law passed by the House as it applies to supplementay benefit. Provision is made for an appeal in any case. What the right hon. Gentleman shows is that he neither understands the law nor wishes it to be applied.

In the light of fresh reports today of mass picketing in the coalfields, does my right hon. Friend recall that in March 1974 the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), as Secretary of State for Employment, commended to the House the rules on picketing laid down by the National Union of Mineworkers in the 1974 dispute, which limited the number of pickets at any local dispute to six? Would it not help to reduce the conflict between police and pickets in the present dispute if in 1984 the union laid down rules similar to those that it laid down in 1974?

My hon. and learned Friend is correct. The number of pickets, by agreement and by code of practice, was limited to six. I agree that it would help if that code of practice were applied.

As the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Order. I called the Leader of the Liberal party.

As the Prime Minister sets such store by the law, will she explain the extraordinary view taken by he Government before the European Commission of Human Rights that any British Government may nationalise the property of British citizens without compensation?

The case is before the Court of Human Rights and if the judgment is against what we have done, the right hon. Gentleman knows that we shall adhere to that decision. It is nice to see the right hon. Gentleman back in his place. I understand that he voted once yesterday.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 24 May.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing feeling in some quarters that the progressive reduction of inflation to zero is no longer the Government's number one priority? Will she confirm that this is not correct, and will she spell out the advantages to the economy, industry and the creation of jobs of sound financial strategy?

I agree with my hon. Friend and I commend to him the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the CBI yesterday, in which he said that we remain firmly committed to the objective of stable prices. The policy of honest money is the only one for a sound Government to follow.

As the National Coal Board has obviously had a re-think as a consequence of its walking out of the meeting with the NUM yesterday—and those talks are about to be resumed—will the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that she and her Government will do everything in their power to make sure that the talks come to a satisfactory conclusion, as conciliation and consultation should be in the political knapsack of any Government and they have been sadly lacking in this Government as of late?

I realise that the hon. Gentleman was probably at the meeting yesterday—

I was there.

—although, when I last answered questions at the Dispatch Box, he shouted from his seat that the meeting had been cancelled because I had put a veto on it. Neither allegation was correct. The meeting took place. As the hon. Gentleman knows, at that meeting the NCB offered talks at senior level between the two sides to discuss "Plan for Coal". He also knows that at that meeting officials of the NCB made four presentations, one on progress on "Plan for Coal", one on the market prospects for coal, one on the deterioration of coal pits and faces if the dispute drags on, and one on the financial prospects. On all these, the NCB asked if there were any comments from the NUM, but there were none.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 May.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give a warm welcome to the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services yesterday removing an injustice to people who leave company pension schemes when changing jobs, thus promoting mobility and giving us encouragement that there will be more news to come on the pensions front?

Yes, we are very much aware that a number of peopel who left their jobs to go to others felt that they had a considerable grievance about their pension provision. The consultative document is meant to cure that and to consult about how best to do it. I believe that it will be generally welcomed and that it will improve mobility, particularly on the part of those at management level whose services are needed if we are to get enterprise up to the level that we need for success and expansion.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 May.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that the long agenda that was discussed yesterday is wholly irrelevant to the real issues that have to be discussed? Is it not surprising to her that the NCB chairman has already volunteered out of any further negotiations? Does that not prove to her what a bad appointment that was? Will she take the initiative that lies with her and put forward a realistic agenda for proper discussions in order to obtain a settlement to this terrible dispute?

No, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman reflects on that agenda he will find that each and every item is highly relevant. He is failing to observe that the letter has gone out and been accepted as a result of consultation between management and work force, who, as he knows full well, will have to co-operate for the future. I wish the talks every success.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order. The hon. Gentleman jumps up nearly every day on a point of order. We have a heavy day ahead of us. Does his point of order concern Question Time?

No. It is concerned with the debate on cruise missiles later.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? Do you not agree that it is damaging to the morale and reputation of the House when one or two Labour Members turn up looking like football hooligans?

There are no dress regulations for the House, but we should dress appropriately.