asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his current policy towards the situation in Northern Ireland.

We aim to create a stable, peaceful and prosperous society which accommodates fairly and generously the identities of both parts of the community.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the maintenance of good relations between Dublin and Westminster is paramount? Does he accept that parts of the Forum report are worth building on and should not be completely dismissed? Does he believe that a parliamentary tier to the Anglo-Irish Council would be helpful at this time?

I agree that a good working relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom is very much in the interests of Northern Ireland as well as of Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. The point about a parliamentary tier is essentially a matter for the Parliaments concerned and not one on which the Government should take an initiative.

Will my right hon. Friend shy away from taking any new political or constitutional initiatives in Northern Ireland in the near future?

I have tried to be steady and reasonable in what I have said about these matters, but I believe that there is an opportunity now, primarily for the elected leaders of the Province, to move away from arguing across the divide and finding ways in which they can hold practical discussions. If I can help that process forward with suggestions, I am ready to do so.

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 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 in the House on 29 November one soldier and five civilians have died in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. The security forces continue energetically to combat terrorism. During 1984, a total of 528 people were charged with serious offences, including 41 with murder and 68 with attempted murder, and 197 weapons, 27,211 rounds of ammunition and 8,535 lb of explosives were recovered. I know that the House will join with me in paying tribute to the efforts of the security forces.

What value can be attached to the Dublin Government's promises of co-operation when their Foreign Minister, Mr. Barry, consistently seeks to undermine and render ineffective measures taken by Her Majesty's Government to prevent terrorism? Does it not look as though Mr. Barry has assumed the role of protector of all people of Irish descent now living and working in England?

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has read the same reports of Mr Barry's remarks as I have. I have the impression that, under questioning, he measured his words with a good deal of care, and has been quite strongly criticised at home as a result.

Is it not intolerable that the Irish Foreign Secretary should have interfered in measures taken in Liverpool and elsewhere to safeguard the lives of our citizens, and does this not put at risk, and is it not a contradiction of, the professed claims of Dublin to want to improve Anglo-Irish relations?

Again I am in a difficulty. My information is that although Mr. Barry was pressed hard to comment in the sense that my hon. Friend describes, he refrained from doing so.

As the new Maghaberry prison, with more than 500 individual cells, will be opening later this year, and as the prison service in Northern Ireland is staffed at a rate of over three warders to one prisoner, will my right hon. Friend, in the ensuing months, consider the opportunity that is offered of abolishing the special category status there?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the opening of the new prison. A number of related decisions have to be taken, and in considering what they should be I shall cover the point made by my hon. Friend. I have not yet taken any decisions, and some press accounts of this are therefore speculative at this stage.

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to look at the extent to which funds are made available for the protection of off-duty members of the Ulster Defence Regiment in their homes, and will he ensure that the same amount of money is available for them as is available for members of the RUC and the RUC reserve?

I am willing to look at this matter. The problem of protecting UDR part-time members when they are at home is an important one which I have discussed with the hon. Gentleman more than once. We are doing everything that we can.

Does the Secretary of State agree that security in Northern Ireland is not helped if those who are charged with conspiracy after being arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act are not brought to trial quickly but are remanded indefinitely, or when the Act is used to arrest people for no other reason than that they are Irish and drunk? If one cannot be drunk on Christmas Eve in Liverpool, where can one be drunk?

The administration of the Prevention of Terrorism Act on this side of the water is not my responsibility. I have been surprised at the speed with which people on both sides of the water have rushed in to comment on recent events before they know what has happened or what charges are being made. A little prudence from the hon. Gentleman would be advisable.

Has there been any change in the Government's policy of granting personal protection weapons to those members of the UDR, the RUC and the police reserves who have finished their term of service, as there has been difficulty in individual cases, to which I have referred in letters? Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement today on the bombing in Newry?

On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I have just had reports about the bombing in Newry, which has caused a great deal of damage in commercial premises, although no one has been seriously injured. However, I do not have the full details. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, there has been no change of policy, and he will understand that these are difficult decisions. I am sure that he will continue to draw specific examples to our attention.

On the question of security in Northern Ireland, and the consequential emergency provisions, does the Secretary of State recall the interesting and objective debate in the House on the Baker report? A number of recommendations were made during that debate and the Government showed their firm intention of acting on some of them. Does the Secretary of State intend to publish his proposals in a White Paper, and if so, will he append to the White Paper the various written submissions such as those made by the standing advisory commission on human rights in Belfast, he has received since the Baker report was published?

We had a good debate just before Christmas on the Baker report. I am still digesting that debate and moving towards decisions on what changes in legislation we would recommend to the House. Let me include in that digestive process the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about a White Paper and its impact.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received about the future of the gas industry in Northern Ireland.

Following the Government's announcement on 6 September 1984 that the Kinsale project would not be proceeded with, representations have been made by hon. Members of this House and also by some Northern Ireland politicians, local councils, employer and trade union groups in the gas industry, industrial and commercial concerns and members of the public.

Does the Minister agree that his refusal to consider proceeding with the Kinsale gas project signs the death warrant not only for the Belfast gas industry but for 13 other areas, that over 1,200 jobs in Belfast alone, and others in many ancillary industries, will be lost, and that many thousands of homes will be affected? Has he considered the Coopers and Lybrand report of 21 December, which demonstrated the viability of a project to bring natural gas to the Greater Belfast area? Will not a course opposite to that suggested by Coopers and Lybrand cost at least £90 million in the Belfast area alone, with the closure of the gas industry?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the gas industry provides only between 2 and 3 per cent. of energy in the Province, and that the subsidy to it costs about £12 million. It costs £10,000 per man employed in that industry. What one spends on one part of the Northern Ireland block, one cannot spend on another. If, at any time, a viable scheme came before us, we would look at it. We have said simply, not that we will close the industry down, but that we shall not continue to give a subsidy. The Government have made their position clear on that point.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members have felt that Northern Ireland has a right to be on the United Kingdom grid? What progress has been made with the exploitation of lignite near Lough Neagh and elsewhere?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking those questions. About 15 per cent. of households in Great Britain are not receiving natural gas, because the gas industry is committed only to providing gas within 25 yd of a gas main and in reasonable quantities.

Burn coal.

The hon. Gentleman may be a greater expert on coal than on gas. There are people in Great Britain who are not actually plugged in.

Will the Minister encourage the liquid gas industry by including liquid gas in the fuels eligible for conversion grants and thereby fill the gap, which is growing?

I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this aspect. We shall certainly consider seriously the points involved. We shall by no means dismiss that idea and, if posible, we shall ensure that that is done.

As the Minister has read the report of the joint working group of the Northern Ireland gas employers board and gas trade union group, does he agree with its conclusions that action will be required to save jobs in the gas industry and to remove threats to many more who may be indirectly affected, that a viable gas industry will benefit consumers, and that it will cost less to secure a future for gas in Northern Ireland than to close the present industry?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the future of a viable gas industry. The Government do not believe that there is a viable gas industry in the Province without heavy subsidisation. It is far better to grasp the nettle and to say immediately that we must find some other fuel which is more economic in the Province than to go on continually subsidising an industry that is slowly dying.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes he intends to make in planning law.

In response to a recommendation of the Northern Ireland Assembly my right hon. Friend proposes to introduce legislation which would require applicants for planning permission to notify neighbours of their development proposals and would, in addition, make a number of miscellaneous amendments.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the defects in the legislation which recently allowed an applicant from Doagh road, Ballyclare, effectively to bypass both the local council and the planning department and have his application approved by a planning appeals commissioner? What action does the hon. Gentleman intend to take to ensure that that does not happen again?

I know that my hon. Friend is giving careful consideration to the points raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe). I, too, am aware of the circumstances that have given rise to this concern. I am

I acknowledge the improvement in enforcement procedure that was brought about by the previous Minister in the Department of the Environment, but will the Government bear in mind the undesirability of that procedure resulting in planning decisions being taken, in the first instance, by the planning commission?

I take note of the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman and will confer with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the votes cast by post in June 1983 in each of the constituencies of Northern Ireland were on grounds of (a) removal, (b) physical disability and (c) all other grounds.

As the answer is in the form of a tabular statement I shall, with permission Mr. Speaker, arrange for it to be published in the Official Report.

Assuming that postal votes in respect of removal are only a very small proportion of the total, does the hon. Gentleman agree that in this context the scope for abuse is exceedingly limited?

Yes. I will clarify that figure. The average throughout Northern Ireland of postal votes for that purpose is about 3·6 per cent. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on the Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill. This is a matter that we shall wish to consider carefully in Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next plans to have discussions with the Government of the Republic of Ireland about the future of Northern Ireland.

I look forward to continuing discussions with Ministers of the Government of the Irish Republic within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. I would not normally expect to announce in advance the dates for such meetings.

When the Secretary of State next meets his opposite number from the Republic of Ireland, will he be putting forward specific proposals about the future of Northern Ireland, or simply responding to suggestions from the Republic or from the political parties in the North?

When the occasion arises I shall be guided by the phrase in the Chequers communiqué of November, which referred to the need for close and continuing dialogue between the two Governments on subjects related to Northern Ireland within the framework of the intergovernmental council. It is certainly not just a matter of sitting back and listening to the ideas of others. We may well have some ideas of our own.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to assure the House that the Government remain committed to a close and developing relationship with the Irish Government? Does he believe that the misunderstandings which arose after the recent summit have now been dispelled?

Yes, I think that they have very largely been dispelled.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, contrary to the views of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor), when part of a country has been wrested from it by force of arms it is inevitable and natural that the rest of the country—the 26 counties as opposed to the six—should be interested in the future of that part? Moreover, does he realise that there will be no future except killing, bombing and so on unless discussions take place between the Republic and this country about the future of Northern Ireland?

When the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) says that something is inevitable, our doubts are automatically aroused. When he goes on to make a fundamentalist statement which is deeply unhelpful, our doubts become certainties.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be no departure from the policy stated time and again by the Prime Minister that the future constitutional position of Northern Ireland is a matter for Her Majesty's Government, this House and the people of Northern Ireland?

The constitutional guarantee has been stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by successive Secretaries of State, and it stands.

Despite what the Secretary of State said, does he accept that although there may be matters of mutual interest which should be discussed with the Government of the Irish Republic, the future of Northern Ireland should not be so discussed?

I think that the position was made perfectly clear in the Chequers communiqué and in what was said after it by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself. I believe that the Irish Government are well aware of the constraints and limits thus set by ourselves, but within those constraints I believe that there is a good deal of useful and important work to be done.

Following the question of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), who does my right hon. Friend regard as his "opposite number" in the Republic? Are not relations with sovereign states a matter for our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary?

I did not take that point up at the time as it seemed somewhat captious to do so, but my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) is quite right. I believe that I am unique.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made by the appeal panels and tribunals in processing milk quota appeals.

The four local panels have considered virtually all the special case claims from some 3,900 producers. In addition, over 400 appeals have been considered from producers who requested a review of the initial rejection by the Department.

I welcome the fact that the tribunals and panels are finally coming to their conclusion, but is the Minister aware that many small producers in Northern Ireland received nothing when they went to the appeal tribunals and panels, and that they have been seriously disadvantaged by the fact that it was the large producers who appear to be receiving whatever milk quota is available?

There are two problems here. The first is when somebody applies for extra quota and is rejected; secondly, there is the even greater problem of people who have been granted extra quota. We do not know until we have finished examining all the special claims how much of the allocation will be given to them. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is well aware of the problem, as are all the territorial Ministers involved in agriculture, and it is currently being examined.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, with regard to the appeals, the percentage of allocation given will be very small in terms of the amount of quota available? To follow what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson) said, is the Minister also aware that it is not the large dairy farmer about whom we need to worry, but the small dairy farmer, who is making his living from a small number of cows?

I am well aware of the problems which have been raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who is obviously very knowledgeable about agriculture in Northern Ireland. I am also aware that the small dairy farmer, on certain issues, faces greater problems than the large dairy farmer. The whole question of how much can be allocated to those who have succeeded in their appeals is being examined. Indeed, meetings are being held between the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other territorial Ministers to see whether anything can be done to correct the Northern Ireland situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his policy towards the repeal of the Flags and Emblems (Northern Ireland) Act.

The Government recognise that there are strong feelings in Northern Ireland both for and against repeal of the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954. We have no plans for repeal, but the use of, and need for, the Act is kept under review.

Why not repeal it? There have been no prosecutions under the Act, and the standing advisory commission on human rights almost 10 years ago recommended its repeal. This would eliminate a cause of annoyance to an important section of the community and would be one of the sympathetic gestures which we were led to understand we might get from the Prime Minister ever since she threw out the Forum report.

The hon. Gentleman has put forward one side of the argument. He will be as aware as I am that there is another side of the argument, and the Government will want to consider both sides before coming to a conclusion.

Does the Minister agree that, irrespective of whether the Act is repealed, the police would still have to intervene when the flaunting of a flag or emblem was likely to lead to a breach of the peace?

The hon. Gentleman is right. The Act has not been used since at least 1969 and the Royal Ulster Constabulary is confident that it has sufficient powers under public order legislation to deal with any provocative use of flags or emblems.

May we not dispense with this legislation when there is effective immunity for those who may wish to fly the Union Flag in the South?

I think that we want to look at legislation in Northern Ireland and how useful it is within the context of the situation there. We shall of course bear in mind my hon. Friend's views, together with all the others that are expressed on this matter.

Given the exchanges with the Minister, is it not a fact that the only time the Act was enforced in the mid-1960s it sparked off the Divis street riot, and as it appears that the same powers exist under the common law in order to prevent a breach of the peace, is not the Act superfluous and irrelevant, and should it not therefore be repealed?

The powers exist under the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, and it is those powers that the RUC uses. That is a factor that we shall bear in mind in coming to a decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider making changes in the scheme for compensation for workers who have been forced to leave their employment, or who have been dismissed, for reasons directly attributable to the civil disturbances.

I have no plans at present to do so, but I shall take note of any representations that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make.

Given that jobs are so scarce in Northern Ireland, is not the loss of a job, whether after six months or 20 years, for whatever reason, a very serious matter? Will the Minister look at the legislation for compensation that is tied to the redundancy payments scheme? After a short time at work some people have been forced out of their jobs by direct terrorist threats, and that is a very serious problem for them.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. The compensation scheme has been tied to the redundancy scheme. Anyone who has worked for a minimum of two years before being forced out of his job is already in the scheme. But if it is obvious that many people are being forced out within one or two years, we shall have to look again at the scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the development of the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly and its functions.

The detailed knowledge of local affairs brought by Members to the scrutinising functions of the Assembly's first phase has undoubtedly been helpful. What is required now is agreement on proposals for devolved government that would enable the Assembly to assume the powers envisaged in the Northern Ireland Act 1982: that remains the chief reason for its existence.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many who believe in the Assembly and that it is doing a good job? Will he urge SDLP Members to accept that their constituents' best interests are not being served by their continued abstention, and will he prompt the Unionists into giving a lead in showing how useful powers might be acceptably given to the Assembly?

In general I agree with my hon. Friend. I am looking forward to the future work of the Report Committee of the Assembly, because that work is central to the body's usefulness.

Can the Secretary of State enlighten us as to just how far he has progressed in his talks with the SDLP about its members taking their seats in the Assembly? Has he any statement to make to the House on that point?

I make no secret of the fact that I should like to see the SDLP in the Assembly, but it sees great difficulties about that. It is essential that the elected leaders of the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland should find some means—whether inside the Assembly or without—of—

entered the Chamber—

May I take this opportunity to welcome back very warmly to the House my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and to congratulate him on the courage that he has shown throughout these past weeks? May I also ask him to convey our very best wishes to his wife?

As the duty officer of Her Majesty's Opposition, may I also take this opportunity of welcoming the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) back to his place in the House? To paraphrase the words of a song, we have grown accustomed to his style, and we wish, hope and pray that he is now restored to his full strength and vigour. May I add that that is the easiest supplementary question that the Secretary of State will have to answer all day?

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received calling for an inquiry into the death of North McCabe; and if he will make a statement.

Since 4 December 1984, one early-day motion, one parliamentary question, six letters from Members of Parliament, one letter on behalf of a political party and nine letters from members of the public have made representations for an inquiry into the death of Mrs. Norah McCabe.

The Secretary of State will be aware that early-day motion 195 is supported by 79 hon. Members and calls for an inquiry into the tragic and unnecessary death of a young mother of three children. Will he reconsider his decision not to hold a public inquiry, which he announced in a written reply to me of 20 December? Has any compensation been paid to the dependants of that unfortunate young woman?

I have thought long and hard about that. There are two aspects. The first relates to possible action against individual police officers arising from the death. I cannot second-guess the independent decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has examined all the evidence, including the film, part of which was recently shown on television, and has come to that conclusion. I have no grounds nor standing to second-guess that.

I appreciate the fullness and frankness of the Secretary of State's answer, but does he recall the statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State during the debate on the Baker report. He said:

"The law provides that any person may use only such force as is reasonable, and both the police and the Army in Northern Ireland have to operate within the law"?—[Official Report, 20 December 1984; Vol. 70, c. 645.]

I tried to explain in my original answer the reasons why I do not believe that I can second-guess the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who had access to all the evidence available. I should modify slightly my last answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry). The action that Mrs. McCabe's husband brought against the Chief Constable for the death of his wife was settled out of court on 29 November for a substantial sum.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to prevent the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein from using the funerals of terrorists for propaganda purposes.

I know that paramilitary displays at funerals give great offence to many people. I am satisfied that the law makes adequate provision for the control of such funerals. It is for the commanders of the security forces on the ground to decide what action to take within the law, whether at the time or subsequently. They must balance the extent of the offence caused by a paramilitary display with the implications of intervention for public order and security.

On behalf of the Ulster Unionists, may I welcome back the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, express our great pleasure at his recovery and our wish that it continues? I ask him to convey our good wishes to his good lady.

My right hon. Friend will have heard the opening remarks of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am satisfied that the law is adequate, but it must be for the judgment of the security forces on the spot whether they intervene in certain circumstances. In the past, people have been apprehended and convicted in those circumstances.

On behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, may I join with every hon. Member in welcoming the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) back to his rightful place in the Chamber, and convey every good wish to his good lady and pray that she will be restored to health and strength?

We have to rest on the judgment of the security forces commanders. The House will be aware that in certain circumstances intervention could put at risk other innocent lives. In those circumstances, the commanders might judge that intervention was not to be preferred against the possibility of identification and subsequent apprehension.

May I also welcome back the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and, in his own style, may I say that I look forward to the time when he is gracing the Opposition Front Bench?

The tricolour would normally be removed only in circumstances that were likely to cause a breach of the peace. The public order implications that we discussed on an earlier question would be taken into account. That is entirely different from the discharging of volleys over coffins by armed men.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will instruct Northern Ireland civil servants and the employees of statutory bodies in Northern Ireland within his responsibility to refuse to meet or communicate with elected representatives of Provisional Sinn Fein.

Contacts with such representatives are kept to the minimum, but, in the interests of constituents, and to ensure that administration is equitable, representations on purely constituency matters are dealt with at local level in a fair and proper manner.

What aspects of the behaviour of Sinn Fein are so objectionable to the Secretary of State that they prevent him from meeting or communicating with its representatives? Why do they not apply to civil servants and those employed in statutory bodies, and to families, many of whose members may have been murdered by associates of Sinn Fein?

It is right that Ministers should refuse to meet Sinn Fein representatives or to reply to letters from them until and unless Sinn Fein renounces violence. I make no apology for that. However, representations made on behalf of constituents must be dealt with properly and fairly in the interests of those constituents, which is why we have arrived at the procedure about which the hon. Gentleman knows.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of community doctors, nurses, psychiatric nurses, social workers and therapists employed by the various health and social service boards.

As the answer is in the form of a tabular statement I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, arrange for it to be published in the Official Report.

Although I welcome the publication of the figures, is the Minister aware that there is growing concern that some vacancies in the community have not been filled? Is he further aware that some people suspect that this is an attempt to save money that will cause problems in the service given to patients? if there is to be a shift from care in hospitals to care in the community, will the Minister acknowledge that there must be adequate funding and staff to achieve that?

Of course, I recognise that. There has been the shift to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and there is provision for an expansion of community social workers in the immediate future.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to prepare discussions with all interested political parties in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic on the future of Northern Ireland.

No, Sir.

Does the Secretary of State accept that those who believe that the last word has been said about Northern Ireland are sadly mistaken, and that the circumstances prove that to be true? Does he further accept that the future of Northern Ireland depends on many discussions and debates? Therefore, will he make it clear that, especially because the policy of the main Opposition party—the Labour party—is for a united Ireland, those discussions must continue with all interested parties, including the Republic?

It would be rash indeed for anyone to predict the day when the last words had been spoken about Northern Ireland. There is an important distinction here which the hon. Gentleman constantly seeks to blur. The United Kingdom needs a good working relationship with the Republic of Ireland, but the initiative on discussions about the way in which the Province should be governed rests essentially with the elected leaders of the Province. I shall give any help or make any suggestions that I can to ease that process.

Will the Secretary of State lose no opportunity to make it clear to the populations of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic that the one thing that unites all parties in the House is our determined opposition to terrorism, and that we all rejoice to see the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry here this afternoon? We wish him and Mrs. Tebbit well.

We are all grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he takes to publicise the role and achievements of the security forces in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend and I have taken, and will continue to take, every opportunity to publicise the work and achievements of the security forces in Northern Ireland. Their work is commended in statements and speeches and during the course of radio, television and newspaper interviews. Attention is also drawn to the achievements of the security forces by the regular inclusion of statistics in the answers to parliamentary questions and in press releases and other publications, and by the briefing of journalists and others from home and abroad. Ministers also make well-publicised visits to units of the security forces in the Province.

Is the Minister aware that there is a scurrilous campaign to discredit the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment — a campaign that is aided by naive members of the public who are not themselves connected with terrorism? Will he take steps to see that incidents in which members of the security forces are involved are more fully explained to the general public? We understand that, for security reasons, there must be constraints, but we feel that not enough is being done to put the case for the members of the security forces.

The hon. Gentleman appreciates the constraints that frequently exist when criminal charges may be brought in certain circumstances. However, I can certainly agree wholeheartedly with him that everything that promises to be effective against terrorism in Northern Ireland is subject to a scurrilous campaign designed to discredit it. Ministers will do their best to counter such campaigns.

asked the Prime Minister if she will dismiss the Secretary of State for Energy.

No, Sir.

Will the right hon. Lady explain to the House why the Secretary of State for Energy did not make better use of his meeting with the leaders of the Trades Unions Congress, led by that nice man Mr. Willis? As the pound slumps, and as further industrial action is contemplated in relation to the mining dispute, will the right hon. Lady do what Energy Ministers do not seem to be able to do, and get negotiations under way?

I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy makes excellent use of all his opportunities. In particular, he never fails to explain what an excellent offer the National Coal Board has made to the National Union of Mineworkers. It is better than any previous offer. Both my right hon. Friend and I hope that more and more men will continue to return to work.

Did my right hon. Friend notice that yesterday the Secretary of State for the Environment, after the National Economic Development Office meeting, saidÖ

Order. If the hon. Gentleman will consult his Order Paper, he will see that the question refers to the Secretary of State for Energy.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 January.

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.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to study the recent report by Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel, which suggests that hundreds of people are dying from causes related to mass unemployment, including 150 on Merseyside? What steps does the Prime Minister or her Cabinet intend to take to reduce unemployment and those horrifying figures? If the right hon. Lady had shown half as much commitment to reducing unemployment as she has to attempting to destroy the NUM, the picture today would be very different.

If we had fewer strikes, people might have more confidence in goods produced in this country and might place more orders. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the only long-term way to reduce unemployment is to produce goods and services that people in this country and other countries will purchase, and that is the aim and purpose of the Government's policies.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to give her support to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education's excellent proposals to introduce assessment of teachers? Will she accept that this innovation would have the overwhelming support of the vast majority of parents, who want the education of their children to be improved?

Yes, I gladly respond to my hon. Friend's invitation. I believe that my right hon. Friend's proposals meet with great support, especially from parents and from all who are interested in raising the standard of education in this country.

Has the Prime Minister had time today to read the report submitted yesterday to the National Economic Development Council, which describes the chronic deterioration in Britain's infrastructure? Will the Government provide the money to remedy the increasing decay of our schools, hospitals, public sector houses and roads and thereby concentrate available funds on what every objective authority agrees is the best way in which to reduce unemployment—public sector capital investment?

That question comes from a right hon. Member who belonged to a Government who reduced and smashed capital expenditure in many Departments, especially on roads, housing and hospitals. The Government have put a great deal of extra expenditure into hospitals and roads. This year, for example, investment in major roads will be 27 per cent. greater in real terms than in 1978ȓ79. We are also putting greater investment into the water industry this year. The purpose of making public investment is that we get a good return, or because certain investment is necessary. The Government have a good record on public investment. Moreover, fixed investment across the economy was running at an all-time record in 1984.

The Prime Minister totally ducks the unemployment question, which is central to what I asked her. I therefore ask her again: does she, or does she not, accept the evidence that is now supplied to her, even by the Department of Trade and Industry, that by far the best way to reduce unemployment and create real jobs is through public investment in repairs and construction? Does she accept that evidence? If she denies it, or refuses to comment on it, we shall know what we have always suspected—that once more a Conservative Government choose higher unemployment because they have other priorities more consistent with the Conservative philosophy.

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, or with what he says about what other people say. Public sector investment remains at about the same real level as it was during the last year of the Labour Government. We also have a record amount in fixed investment across the economy. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's view that extra expenditure on infrastructure is the best way in which to increase employment. As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, we spend £2 billion a year on special employment measures. That secures far more jobs than what he is proposing.

Faced with the growing stocks of chemical weapons in the Soviet Union, will my right hon. Friend make it crystal clear today that Great Britain will keep to its permanent policy of improving its defences against chemical attack and seeking international agreement on the banning of chemical weapons, and will not resort to the manufacture of chemical weaponry in Britain?

The facts are that Britain abandoned its chemical warfare capability in the late 1950s. There has been no change in Government policy since then, nor is any change now proposed. However, as a responsible Government, we have a duty to keep defence policy under review in the light of what my hon. Friend said about the massive Soviet capability in chemical weapons. As my hon. Friend said, the Government are playing a leading part in the international negotiations in Geneva for a comprehensive, verifiable and worldwide ban on these weapons, and we tabled important initiatives in March 1983 and February 1984 on verification and challenge inspections. We abandoned our chemical weapons. Any criticism should be directed at the Soviet Union for keeping a massive chemical warfare capability.

I welcome back the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and salute his courage.

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As I said in reply to a previous question, the Government are spending, through the taxpayer, a considerable amount of money on infrastructure. This year, partly because of the drought, we are increasing investment in the water industry—it is 9 per cent. up. Investment in major roads is 27 per cent. greater than it was under the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. I would not accept, and I do not know where he gets it from, that expenditure on infrastructure is the best way of increasing jobs. We get a far better deal for £2 billion expenditure on special measures, which, as he knows, helps 400,000 to 600,000 people.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 January.

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

If the Prime Minister is saying that these works of infrastructure are not to be done now, when will they be done? Is she aware that delay is making the cure costlier? Does she not agree, at the very least, that any room for manoeuvre on Budget day should be dedicated to measures that increase investment in the infrastructure and thus combine necessity, efficiency and employment?

I do not quite understand why the hon. Gentleman is not hearing what I am saying about the amount spent on public sector investment. Public sector investment remains at about the same real level as in 1978ȓ79. It is £24 billion. The extra spending on infrastructure does not gain anything like the same number of new jobs as spending on special measures. We spend £2 billion on special measures. That includes a great deal of training. That training also helps young people to be equipped for some of the science-based industries of the future. That, I believe, is the right way in which to increase employment possibilities.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 January.

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

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that during 1985 the main economic target will be the continued control and reduction in the level of inflation, as this is likely to lead to the greatest number of people in employment and to a potential increase in employment?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We shall, of course, maintain our objective of continuing to reduce inflation. I understand that that might even find support on the Opposition side of the House, as I recall the occasion in December 1978 when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said:

"Our immediate intention is to hold the inflation rate at or about its present level. Our eventual aim is to reduce the figure to the level enjoyed by our most successful competitors, for unless we achieve our objectives none of our other policies—economic growth, lower unemployment, higher investment and improved services financed by public expenditure—can fully succeed."—[Official Report, 13 December 1978; Vol. 960, c. 677.]

In December it was widely reported that the Prime Minister would be considering the Stansted report during the recess. What is her reaction to it? Is she aware that a quick and definitive rejection of the inspector's recommendations is wanted by hundreds of us on both sides of the House, not least by those from the north, where even the thought of £1 billion-plus expenditure at Stansted excites not just outright opposition but anger?

I hope that many hon. Members had a very interesting recess, as I did, reading that report and that they will be ready to have a debate in the House. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that I can say nothing whatsoever about it, for obvious reasons. We are committed to having a parliamentary debate before too long, I hope, before the Government make up their mind. By the time we have that debate, I hope that hon. Members will have read the report.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official enagagements for Thursday 10 January.

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

Why, in the answers that she has given about public investment, has the Prime Minister consistently ignored the fact that the NEDC report talks about many million of pounds worth of repairs still to be carried out to roads, sewers and houses in particular?—[Interruption.] Why has she ignored housing and the fact that many people are living in gross discomfort in damp and dismal homes and that repairs to those dwellings would make their lives far more comfortable and would provide many jobs—[Interruption.] Is she aware that a moderate spending of £1 billion a year would provide between 70,000 and 100,000 more jobs each year, and will she cease to dismiss this as unimportant?

In so far as I could hear the hon. Lady, I repeat that on public sector investment this Government are spending some £24 billion. There has been a switch of emphasis on housing—as people want—from public to private sector, and that reflects this Government's belief that most people wish to own their own homes. Owner-occupation rose by 1·7 million between 1979 and 1984, and the hon. Lady clearly criticises the Labour Government's housing record because the dwelling stock rose by 900,000 between 1979 and 1984.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I will take points of order after the private notice question unless they arise directly from Question Time.

My point of order is about questions, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister constantly to read all her answers instead of answering questions in a proper way?

Everyone has his own method of dealing with questions in this House, and it is not a matter for me.

She is cribbing.

Order.