asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will re-allocate the portfolios among the junior Ministers of the Northern Ireland Office so as to avoid the same Minister being responsible for both environment and health and social services.

The two portfolios have been carried with distinction by my hon. Friend since June 1983. I have no plans to re-allocate them.

Is the Secretary of State aware that this question carries no sort of imputation or criticism of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), but does not the Secretary of State recognise that the detailed part of these duties could be much more effectively carried out if it were administered by locally elected representatives?

I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says in the first part of his supplementary questions. He is really criticising the system under which it is I who have too wide powers which in his view ought to be in the hands of an elected authority. I have a great deal of sympathy for that point of view. If it were possible to reach agreement in the Province on arrangements that would pass some of those powers out of my hands into the hands of an elected authority or authorities, and if they gained widespread acceptance in so doing, both I and the House would wish to look at them very carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied with the procedures followed by his Department in the processing of claims for damage due to terrorist activity.

Yes, Sir. The present procedures enable claims to be dealt with quickly and efficiently within the framework provided by the criminal damage legislation.

But surely the Minister is aware of many cases where further information is requested from the applicant at a fairly late stage in the proceedings. Would it not be helpful to all concerned if the Government were to prepare and issue to every applicant a detailed list of the information that would be needed before the application for compensation was completed? Surely that would benefit everybody in Northern Ireland?

Almost invariably in these cases, those with any substantial claims have legal advisers to help them. Guidance is issued by the Northern Ireland Office for the assistance of claimants. Many of the delays occurring at a late stage are those related to consequential loss which requires detailed accounting information. This can take some time both to produce and then to assess.

Will the Secretary of State inform the House of the time that certain cases have been outstanding? Is it not a fact that many claimants have been waiting an extremely long time for final payment?

That is right in terms of final payment, but it is the practice of the branch concerned in the Northern Ireland Office always to issue interim payments so as to reduce the hardship suffered by individual claimants.

I accept that interim payments are useful, but how can the Minister describe the system as speedy and efficient when it takes up to and over two years for the final settlement to be made? Surely the Minister should re-examine the entire procedure.

Final settlement has still not been completed in the Droppin' Well Inn case, but well over £500,000 has been paid out in criminal damage and criminal injury claims in that case. We want to tidy up the final details as quickly as possible.

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

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

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

Since I last answered questions in the House on 10 January, one member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and one civilian have died in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province.

The security forces continue to combat terrorism with courage and determination. Since the beinning of this year a total of 57 people have been charged with serious offences including two with murder and five with attempted murder; and 14 weapons, 691 rounds of ammunition and 1·5lbs of explosives have been recovered.

Will the Secretary of State consider reviewing the use of weapons by these security forces, bearing in mind the killing of Mrs. Norah McCabe by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the killing recently of a young joyrider by the Ulster Defence Regiment? Both these innocent people lost their lives unnecessarily. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider disbanding the UDR, which is a sectarian organisation with fewer than 2,000 Catholic members? Will he make a statement on the recent protests made by the Irish Foreign Secretary to his Department?

Every soldier and police officer in Northern Ireland who goes out on an operation knows that he is subject to the law. The courts take a serious view if they find that the force used went beyond that which was reasonable. That is a serious constraint that is not always properly appreciated. I do not believe that it would be compatible with the security of Northern Ireland or with the safety of its citizens to disband the UDR. We have had various exchanges of a courteous kind with the Irish Government on several recent incidents and I am not sure to which one the hon. Gentleman is referring especially.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the Conservative Benches and, I suspect, on others in this place there is the hope that we shall hear no more talk of disbanding the UDR? It has been doing excellent work and it is regrettable that deaths have occurred recently.

Yes, Sir. Talk of disbanding the UDR ignores the crucial role that it plays in many parts of the Province. It is important that by its methods of recruitment, training and deployment it is made clear that it is a force whose aim and purpose is to defend all citizens of the Province and that it is not, as has been alleged, a sectarian force.

In the light of the proposed talks between the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the so-called Army Council of the IRA and the statement of Dr. FitzGerald that if the meeting takes place in the Republic he will take measures to ensure that it is broken up, will my right hon. Friend take similar measures if the talks take place within the United Kingdom? Will he give an assurance that the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act will apply to all those who participate in the talks and condemn all those who take part in the talks, which are treasonous talks?

I have expressed my view that the proposal that such a meeting should be held is not wise. Under our system it is not for me to decide or direct how the law in Northern Ireland, let alone any other part of the United Kingdom, should be upheld. That is the responsibility of the chief constables. It is clear that if members of the IRA Army Council were to meet in Northern Ireland, avowedly in that capacity, they would be committing an offence under section 21 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisons) Act 1978 of belonging or professing to belong to a proscribed organisation.

In the light of the obvious controversy that surrounds the UDR, has the Secretary of State yet apprised himself of the numbers of members of that regiment who have been charged with or been found guilty of serious offences? Does he not think that he should have apprised himself of such figures?

Of course I am aware of the serious cases that have occurred over the years and which have involved different members of the security forces, not solely the UDR. Those cases have been taken very seriously by the judiciary and the courts. I am also aware, because I have met them and, in some cases, their widows, of the large numbers of people in Northern Ireland who have joined the UDR at great personal risk. Under continuing tension and risk over many years they have given a great deal of selfless service to their fellow citizens. That must also be taken into account.

In view of the great controversy involved in the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) meeting murderers, and in view of the Secretary of State's statement at the Dispatch Box today that such a meeting would be illegal, does he agree that under the Criminal Law Act 1967 anyone who refused to give information about such a meeting would commit an offence that is punishable by imprisonment? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the golden principle that no-one—politician or pauper—should be seen to be above the law?

No one is above the law. I am advised that under section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 a person who has information likely to secure the arrest of someone who has committed an arrestable offence commits an offence if he fails within a reasonable time and without reasonable excuse to give that information to the police. That is probably the section to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Will the Secretary of State consider the use of additional units of the SAS to counter the IRA's campaign of genocide in the frontier regions—genocide which, unfortunately, has involved many members of the Ulster Defence Regiment?

That is not directly a matter for me, but units of the Regular Army are available to the General Officer Commanding when, in consultation with the Chief Constable, he believes that they are needed.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's denunciation of the campaign of character assassination as well as physical assassination of the UDR, but is not the reason why some people are able to misrepresent the Regiment as sectarian the systematic murder of so many Catholic members of the UDR and the systematic intimidation of their families? Was not the first fatal casualty in the UDR a Roman Catholic lining in the Falls road?

I believe that that is right. It is certainly true, regrettable and understandable that the proportion of Catholics in the UDR has declined. I have no doubt that intimidation has played an important part in that. It is essential that the UDR's role is understood and defended by those who recognise the realities of terrorism in Northern Ireland. The regiment itself, by its recruitment, training and deployment, should show to the world that it is not a sectarian force.

What specific action has the Secretary of State taken about the partiality of the UDR revealed at the recent trial of one of its privates, Mr. Geoffrey Edwards, for the murder of a Sinn Fein election agent, Mr. Peter Corrigan? What incentive is there to abandon the bullet for the ballot if one puts one's self at risk from, of all people, men in British Army uniform?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should take that line. Under our system, it is for the courts to take a view of offences of that kind. As he knows, the courts took a serious view of the case to which he referred. There are plenty of opportunities for members of the minority community to take part in the public life of Northern Ireland, and I wish that they would increasingly do so.

May we have an assurance that every step will be taken in the Lisnaskea area to see that UDR men who are serving valiantly the cause of peace in the area get the adequate cover that they need? Will the right hon. Gentleman order an inquiry into the circumstances of the tragic murder of Mr. Jimmy Graham, who, in going to Derrylin without any cover, might as well, from the security point of view, have beeen going to Crossmaglen?

The hon. Gentleman has told me of his concerns about that case, and they are being looked into.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that about 35,000 people in Northern Ireland are serving or have served in the UDR and that, on the basis of those figures, it is wholly irresponsible for the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) to call for the disbandment of the UDR? Will he remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the disbandment of that force could result only in the transfer of many thousands of regular soldiers from the British Army back into Northern Ireland?

I have said that what the UDR does in the Province is indispensable for the protection of its citizens. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is wrong and misleading for generalised accusations to be built on the basis of particular cases. I am surprised that people with experience, particularly those with experience in the legal profession, should fall into that trap.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the security situation in Northern Ireland is not helped by actions such as those of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who, on a day when marches had been banned in the city of Leicester, came to the city and spoke publicly in favour of the actions of Sinn Fein and spoke in an inflammatory manner?

I am hardly surprised. I am even less surprised at my hon. and learned Friend's reaction, which I share.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to study the poll carried out by the Northern Ireland consumer panel, and published in the Belfast Telegraph, demonstrating that 89 per cent. of Protestants in Northern Ireland believe that the system of justice is fair, while only 36 per cent. of Catholics have a similar belief? Reverting to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliff (Mr. Duffy), will the right hon. Gentleman try to identify those aspects of the system which cause such anxiety among Catholics? Does he propose to make a beginning by introducing legislation to implement the Baker recommendations?

I read the interesting poll which was published in the Belfast Telegraph yesterday. Although one should take such surveys with some scepticism, it showed the truth of something that I have been trying to say for some months, namely, that it is misleading to generalise about such matters as the attitude of members of the minority community to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and such generalisations are not borne out by those findings. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to prod me from time to time about legislation to reflect decisions on the Baker review. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement about that before long and that legislation will follow as soon as we can find a slot for it.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what effect a 1 megaton nuclear burst at a height of 300 miles would have on the equipment and resources in his charge.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to harden vulnerable equipment in his charge against the effects of nuclear electromagnetic pulse.

The principal effect of a high level nuclear blast of 1 megaton would be an electromagnetic pulse. This could cause very widespread damage to telecommunications, electronic equipment, and electricity supply and appliances if they were not protected. Much work and research is presently going on throughout the world on the question of protection against the effects of such a pulse, and we in Northern Ireland will make full use of all available information to protect essential equipment such as that designated for civil defence purposes.

I am grateful for that answer. Will my hon. Friend ensure that technical advice on those matters is available for those who need to know?

A great deal of work is going on and we shall ensure, for example, that the new purpose-built buildings in Northern Ireland, which are planned for completion by 1988, will be fully protected up to the most modern standards.

In view of the serious nature of the Minister's reply, will he assure the House that the Government have no such intentions in Northern Ireland?

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any new plans to try to bring together the two communities in Northern Ireland to discuss their fundamental differences.

I have recently had further talks with the constitutional parties during which I urged them to seek practical arrangements for a system of government which they can agree to operate.

Has not the killing and maiming—not just from one side—been going on for 16 years? If no initiative is taken, 16 years from now people will be sitting here still trying to solve the same problems. Are we going to bring the two sides together? I do not mean have discussions with them privately; I mean to bring them together in a proper conference to have them air their differences so that we can all share them, discover precisely what they are, and take it from there, otherwise when will there ever be an end to it?

A public conference of the kind that the hon. Gentleman advocates would not do much good, because public positions are frequently proclaimed. It is necessary for the party leaders to find an occasion to meet, two by two, or collectively, to see whether some of the more hopeful things that have been written and said in recent months can be turned into practical proposals. That is what I am trying to encourage.

Does the Secretary of State accept that further polarisation of the communities is undesirable, and that to date the housing needs of the Northern Ireland communities have been well satisfied and good progress has been made on that front? It is now the appropriate time for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to maintain mixed communities where there have been good community relations and where Roman Catholics and Protestants have lived side by side, but where, because of the executive's present allocation there is a real possibility that further single community ghettos will develop, which will hinder progress and reconciliation.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. On his main point, it is difficult for the Housing Executive or anyone else to generalise too broadly about what is best in each case. If the hon. Gentleman has particular instances in mind which he has not yet drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend, I hope that he will do SO.

Is it not clear that sectarian differences are likely to be worsened if representatives of one constitutional party in Northern Ireland decide to meet terrorist representatives?

I have given my view on that several times recently. I do not believe that such a meeting would be wise, not least because of the setback which I believe it would constitute to the edging forward and the progress which I believe has been made towards the leaders of the constitutional parties having serious discussions.

Leaving aside the background to that affair, which requires a little more time than that provided by Question Time, does the Secretary of State agree that the reaction of members of the Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party, who have said that they will call off the proposed talks with the SDLP because I have decided to confront a violent organisation about its violence, is dishonest and hypocritical, given that they have been openly sitting down, not to confront violent organisations, but to collaborate with them with the objective of bringing down the power-sharing executive?

They were members of the council of a murderous organisation which murdered more than 500 innocent people in Northern Ireland. They did that not to stop violence but to collaborate with such organisations. It is hypocrisy to criticise me for confronting a violent organisation to get it to stop. Further, will he tell me whether he agrees with the statement that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made yesterday? He described an organisation which has murdered more than 500 innocent civilians as a counter-terrorist organisation and therefore not really a terrorist organisation. Does the Secretary of State agree with that statement? Will the right hon. Gentleman—

Order. That will be plenty.

It is for Unionist Members to explain their views about that meeting. I have explained mine. The courage of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) in denouncing and resisting violence is, I believe, unmatched in the House. I hope that he will think again about this, as I believe that he and the other elected Members of constitutional parties in Northern Ireland had reached the stage at which definite practical discussions between them were possible and might be fruitful. I should very much regret it if that prospect were put at risk.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the leaders of Unionism in Northern Ireland have made it perfectly clear that the door is open for the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) to come and talk to them provided that he does not talk to the IRA, so it is he who is closing the door, not the Unionist leaders in Northern Ireland? Is the Secretary of State further aware that the hon. Gentleman's accusations today are totally false and that at no time did Unionist leaders sit down with murderers or the Army Council of either the UDA or the UVF, and well he knows it.

Practise what you preach.

In my view, it is precisely that kind of exchange, taking place in the earshot of members of the British public throughout the country, from which we must get away if there is to be any real progress in Northern Ireland.

Does the Secretary of State agree that whether something might be gained for the cause of peace and reconciliation by speaking to a particular group is a matter of judgment which each of us has to make in good faith and on which we may disagree? Will he try to persuade the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that if we refuse to speak to those with whose judgment we disagree the cause of reconciliation and the prospects of finding a solution will move further away?

I agree that it is a matter of judgment, and we are all entitled to make our own judgments.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new proposals he has to strengthen the structure of local government in Northern Ireland.

The Government will consider any new proposals for regional or local administration that command widespread acceptance throughout the community.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I draw his attention to the recent Assembly report, which shows that a strengthening of local government responsibility would be welcomed? As it is widely felt that certain central Government responsibilities could now be transferred to local government, will my right hon. Friend consider initiating a conference on the subject in the spring in the Province?

I am not very enthusiastic about transferring powers to the existing district councils in Northern Ireland, for reasons which should be apparent to anyone who studies that scene at the moment. My hon. Friend is right, however, in saying that the Assembly Committee has made a preliminary report, although it did not attempt to discuss the basic matters which he rightly raises. I hope that in the coming weeks a further report, although not necessarily a final report, will be produced. The Committee is handicapped in that the SDLP is not represented on it or giving evidence to it, but a further report could examine on behalf of the parties represented on the Committee various options which they believe are worth carrying forward.

Can the Secretary of State tell us whether, when he met the IRA, and when his noble Friend Lord Whitelaw and his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry met the IRA, they confronted the IRA on the question of violence, or did they merely talk about local government?

Order. That question would more appropriately have been asked on the preceding question, although I did not manage to call the hon. Gentleman then.

With respect, Mr. Speaker—

Order. Does the question relate to strengthening the structure of local government?

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I asked whether the Secretary of State discussed those matters or whether he discussed local government.

I never discussed local government on that occasion.

Could not the Secretary of State's failure to proscribe Sinn Fein destroy the present local government set-up rather than strengthen it?

No, Sir. That is a separate question, but I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusion.

Would not some suggestion of an enhanced role for councillors encourage many people of real ability to come forward as candidates for all the political parties in Northern Ireland at the coming elections?

I understand that argument. If the party leaders, of whom the right hon. Gentleman is one, or the Devolution Report Committee of the Assembly, were able to bring forward proposals that I could commend to the Cabinet and the House as commanding widespread acceptance, that would be a step forward.

Is there not a role for the Assembly in serving as the upper tier of local government in Northern Ireland?

That role would be rather different from the one given to the Assembly by the House. The Assembly is doing a good job in the scrutinising role that is its immediate responsibility. However, if the elected representatives of constitutional parties in the Province came forward with a proposal on the lines that my hon. Friend has suggested and could show that the proposal was widely accepted across the communities, it should certainly be considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the target norms for community doctors, nurses, psychiatric nurses, social workers and therapists set for the various health and social service boards; and whether he is satisfied that they have been met.

Target norms are generally not used by the Department of Health and Social Services as a basis for determining priorities for service development, largely because they are not sensitive to local variation in service needs. The Department's existing regional guidelines for determining priorities are set out in circular HSS(P)1/80, a copy of which is available in the Library.

Is the Minister satisfied that there are enough people in post, in the western board area in particular, to serve the needs of the people? Should not more attention be paid to raising the level of provision of community doctors and workers in that area and others?

We have been attempting to do so. The Department has consistently increased funds to community services at a faster rate than those to institutional services over the past decade. We shall continue to do so, whatever the occasional difficulties.

Has not the number of unemployed nurses in Northern Ireland spiralled from about 350 when the Government took office to between 1,450 and 1,500? That is the number of qualified nursing personnel who are available for work but cannot be employed by any of the four area health boards because of insufficient funding. Is it not also true that there is a major psychiatric hospital in Antrim which is understaffed to the extent of 100 trained nursing personnel?

The hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the number of qualified nurses in Northern Ireland has spiralled over the past five years. There are 2,000 more of them now than there were when the hon. Gentleman's party left office. More nurses are unemployed because more qualified nurses are staying on than was once the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will pay an official visit to the aircraft manufacturing factories of Short Brothers in Belfast.

My right hon. Friend and I visited Shorts' headquarters at Queens Island last November and were shown its aircraft, aerostructures and missile manufacturing activities. I keep in regular contact with the chairman and expect to make further visits to the company in due course.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating Shorts on its success in selling eight commuter aircraft to China, as announced earlier this week? Does he agree that that underlines the marketing strength of Shorts, which could also be used to sell the Tucano trainer aeroplane abroad on its own or with the British Aerospace model?

I rang the chairman the following morning to congratulate him on the sale of eight aircraft to China, other sales that it has recently achieved and the option on seven more aeroplanes. I know that many people in the Province hope that the Tucano aircraft will be chosen, bearing in mind what it will do for Shorts and employment in the Province.

Is the Minister aware that there are other contenders for the RAF basic trainer? Will he convey to the Secretary of State, who I am sure will want to make the right decision, that the right aeroplane to choose is that which the RAF wants most and which can be acquired at the most sensible price? Does he agree that that is probably the PC9, which is linked with British Aerospace?

I am well aware that there are other contenders. The fact that Shorts has done so well in the past is at least a recommendation for future contracts.

When the Minister pays his next visit to Shorts, will he take with him the appropriate copy of the American business magazine "Industry Week", which last year forecast that Shorts might be on course to becoming one of the United Kingdom's biggest industrial success stories? If that is so, why does the Minister want to inflict on Shorts the dogma of privatisation?

I welcome the achievements of Shorts to which the hon. Gentleman referred. There are no immediate plans for privatisation, but we are taking advice on the problems, advantages and costs of privatisation. As with other denationalised industries, employees would be able to become shareholders, but it is essential that Shorts remains in Northern Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of Aldergrove and Belfast Harbour airports.

Algergrove will continue to be the main airport serving the demands for air transport in Northern Ireland. However, additional services are provided from other airports in Northern Ireland, including Belfast Harbour airport, where scheduled services recommenced in February 1983.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Civil Aviation Authority proposal to include Harbour airport but to exclude Aldergrove within the area operating facility list is a slap in the face for competition in the Province, which has so far forced Aldergrove to reduce its charges and then to keep them steady for the past two years? Will the Minister ensure that Harbour airport maintains its place in the interests of non-jet airlines, passengers and Shorts?

I do not recognise any slaps in the face. As my hon. Friend knows, the matter is principally one for the CAA and therefore in this House for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to devolve more power to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I hope that the Assembly will produce proposals as soon as it can for devolved arrangements which would be likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community and which I could therefore recommend to this House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, unless all parties take their place in the Assembly, it cannot fulfil its proposed role? Does he agree also that it would make sense to set a date by which all of the parties should have participated and that, if they have not, we should reconsider the Assembly's future?

I am not sure that it would be sensible now to act on my hon. Friend's advice. I hope that the Devolution Report Committee on the Assembly can produce proposals, mainly in a further interim report, which could help us to work something out that would command widespread acceptance.

Is not the Northern Ireland Assembly a farce? The minority communities distrust it so much that they do not attend it, and it is therefore completely one-sided and talks to itself.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Assembly does a good deal of practical and useful work, which has improved the quality of administration in the Province.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current rate of job creation in Northern Ireland; and how this compares with Great Britain.

An analysis of employment returns in Northern Ireland shows that at least 732 employers, employing 25 or more staff, increased their employment by a total of 11,151 jobs in the 12 months ending September 1984.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that this impressive rate of progress will lead to a significant diminution in the tragic rate of unemployment in the Province?

I hope, as my hon. Friend does, that that will be the case. Similarly, we hope that there will be an increase in job creation this year, even against last year's figures.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 February.

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 find time today to apologise to the Archbishop of Canterbury for trying to steal the credit for the release of the four Britons from Libya? Now that she has seen that the Church has shown more initiative, wisdom and diplomacy about foreign affairs than her Government, will she accept its advice on domestic affairs and get the National Coal Board to negotiate a speedy and honourable settlement of this dispute?

I gladly pay tribute to the Archbishop of Canterbury and Mr. Waite, as I did on Tuesday. The hon. Gentleman will find that in Hansard. All the praise is theirs for having secured a successful outcome to the Libyan hostages problem.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 February.

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

My right hon. Friend will have heard today that more miners going to work have again been stoned by pickets. In view of the critical part played by violence and intimidation in prolonging the coal dispute, will she set up an inquiry to examine the organisation and the financing of organised picketing and violence in the dispute?

As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has been undertaking a review of the Public Order Act, which will take account of experiences on the picket line. I agree that the strike has been prolonged by violence and intimidation. The Home Secretary's review is nearing completion, and I hope that we shall soon be in a position to make an announcement about it.

Throughout the miners' strike the Prime Minister has repeatedly demanded that the National Union of Mineworkers accepts the NACOD agreement. In the light of today's joint statement from the unions, which says that

"the conditions being demanded of the NUM by the NCB effectively negate the agreement reached between NACOD and the NCB"

will she strongly advise the board to return to full negotiations, so that the strike can be settled?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the board met NACODS early this week and made it clear that it would honour the agreement with NACODS in full. The board reaffirmed that position to NACODS. It is perhaps a greaty pity that this morning NACODS was unable to persuade the NUM to accept the NACODS agreement and the spirit of it, or, alternatively, to accept the single compromise that was previously negotiated through the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

The Prime Minister is either grossly misinterpreting or grossly misrepresenting this morning's events and the discussion and agreement between the NUM executive and NACODS. She has before her the joint statement issued by those unions. Now that there is a serious effort to restart negotiations for settlement, will she start to act like a responsible Prime Minister instead of seeking further to impede negotiations and being a wrecker who wants conquest at any cost?

That is absolute nonsense. The board will honour the agreement with NACODS in full. May I stress that again and again. It is not in doubt. If the NUM would also accept the NACODS agreement and the spirit of it, the coal strike could be over. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to urge the NUM to accept the NACODS agreement.

The Prime Minister has used exactly the words that she used last week. I urge her, because the circumstances are significantly changed by this morning's discussion and agreement between the two unions, to use the power that she knows she has to advise the board to resume negotiations. The National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers has said:

"It is agreed that the conditions being demanded of the NUM by the NCB would effectively negate the agreement reached between NACODS and the NCB in October 1984."

Does the right hon. Lady not understand that the whole basis of agreement is in jeopardy because of her interference and the way in which she has sought to prolong the dispute? She has a chance to secure negotiation and settlement now. Why does she not take it?

The right hon. Gentleman is trying to make out that an agreement freely negotiated between the NCB and NACODS is in jeopardy. It is not, and nothing that he says can put a freely negotiated agreement between two sides in jeopardy. That agreement with NACODS is not in jeopardy. The National Coal Board met NACODS earlier this week to re-affirm, yet again, that the agreement will be honoured in full. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman urge the NUM to accept that agreement? It will be honoured by the NCB in full, regardless of the impression that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to give to prolong the strike.

In view of what many pensioners and chronically ill people are being told by their doctors about the future availability of medicines, will my right hon. Friend confirm that no limited list will be issued which, of itself, compels NHS patients to pay for or do without medicines for which they have a clear clinical need?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has gone into this matter in great detail. The proposals that he has put forward are in the interests of NHS patients and will release money for the care of more patients.

Will the Prime Minister clarify the NACODS settlement? Is it not true that the settlement allows for an independent reviw procedure, but that it also allows the NCB to close pits against the advice of the independent review procedure? Equally, there is no commitment on NACODS' part to accept the independent review procedure, and it can take strike action. The same would apply to the NUM if it signed the NACODS agreement. The unions are not bound to accept the advice of the independent review procedure. Does the Prime Minister accept that it is vital that the NCB's right to manage should not be interfered with?

Yes, Sir. The last paragraph of the NACODS agreement states:

"If, at the end of this process"Ȕ

that is the colliery review procedureȔ

"the matter was still in conflict and might lead to a foreshortening of a colliery's life expectancy, this question, as has already happened in the past, can be referred for national consideration and, indeed, would then be subject to the Independent Review Body and full weight given to its findings, just as would be the case in any question of a distinct closure proposal."

The NACODS approach was given in evidence to the Select Committee. It was different from the NUM approach given in evidence to that same Select Committee. On 25 November 1982 NACODS made it clear that it would, as the right hon. Gentleman said, oppose closures. Its representatives made it clear that the association would normally agree to closures only when reserves of coal had been absolutely worked out. It went on then to make the right hon. Gentleman's other point:

"In other circumstances, the decision to close will be made by the National Coal Board."

The right hon. Gentleman is correct. NACODS may oppose all the way, but in the end it will accept the National Coal Board's right to manage, and of course it is perfectly free to use the strike weapon should it choose. [Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen do not want to hear the agreement or the evidence that was given. An agreement cannot be negated by things said outside the room in which it was reached.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 February.

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

With the renewed onset of severe winter weather, will the Prime Minister read the letter sent to her by her own Solicitor-General for Scotland criticising the unfair and unjustifiable fuel allowances system that caused so much concern three weeks ago? Is she not aware that there are rumours circulating that, instead of conducting a review intended to bring in fairer allowances, the intention of the DHSS and the Cabinet is to abolish heating allowances altogether? Since the average electricity heating bill in the north of Scotland is £290, compared with £204 in the south of England, will she take action to deny the rumours that the DHSS does not intend to reach a fairer fuel allowance system and pledge that the Government will introduce one as soon as possible?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have already announced a review of these provisions, and that is being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I have in front of me the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It says:

"Although every Scottish MP knows that more than four hundred million pounds is spent on heating allowances throughout the United Kingdom each year, that fact is being conveniently overlooked."

It also says that I should

"be aware that the SNP as well as the Labour Party have been outspoken in their support for this very damaging, costly and violent strike. They ignore the fact that the potential effect of this industrial action on pensioners' fuel bills is far greater than anything this additional heating allowance could ever cover."

Order. I appeal for shorter questions, please. [HON. MEMBERS: "And shorter answers."]

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 February.

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

Has my right hon. Friend noticed in yesterday's and today's newspapers the great success story of a firm in the north-east of England, Tyne Shiprepairers, which, since privatisation only a year ago, has turned a loss of £13 million into a profit, has gained new orders of £l9 million and has doubled its labour force—all in the space of one year? Is there not a moral here?

I congratulate the Tyne Shiprepair company on an excellent first year. It took 500 people on to its payroll. It has done extremely well under the spur of privatisation and has now 1,200 on its payroll. Success and privatisation — [Interruption.] — create genuine jobs—and how the Opposition hate that.

Reverting to the mining dispute, does the Prime Minister appreciate that what changed the situation last week was the issue, by the Coal Board with her approval, of a demand that the National Union of Mineworkers should sign a document before it came to the negotiating table? Does she not understand that it was that demand that also wrecked the position with NACODS? Does she not understand this, and will she say why she and her Ministers did not consult NACODS before they gave approval to the document that injured the negotiations? As she has played such a prominent part in injuring those negotiations, will she at last make some effort to get decent negotiations going?

The right hon. Gentleman is, I believe, under a fundamental misconception. An agreement negotiated between two bodies holds and is reaffirmed and can never be upset, except by further agreement between those two bodies. The NCB met NACODS earlier this week and reaffirmed that the agreement that they had previously negotiated still stands. It cannot be upset by what is said elsewhere.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does it arise from questions?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to adopt a completely new habit of reading from the pamphlets that she brings with her, so much so that Back Benchers now have less time available to ask questions because of the amount of endless and boring reading in which the Prime Minister engages?

As the House knows, I take a particular interest in ensuring the protection of Back Benchers. My view is that at Prime Minister's Question Time a little too much time is now taken up by the Front Benches, thereby denying time to Back Benchers.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) was referring to a very recent habit — repeated again today — of reading from a lengthy statement of Government policy, on this occasion in response to a question from an Opposition Member. However, on Tuesday the Prime Minister did so in response to a vital question on Gibraltar from a Conservative Member.

As you are concerned about the time taken by the Front Benches, I invite you to go through Hansard for the last few months and to compare my subscriptions with the responses of the Prime Minister. I am sure you will discover that the House has been preoccupied much more with the right hon. Lady's long answers than with any of my questions.

roseȔ

Order. We have a busy day ahead of us and I do not think we should get into any dispute on this matter. I simply say to the Leader of the Opposition that I leave him wide discretion to rise more than twice—mostly on three occasions — for that very reason. I realise that a very important issue was discussed today.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an abuse of the House and of the protection afforded Back Benchers who are entitled to question the Prime Minister — who is already under considerable protection, given that she answers questions for only half an hour each week—for the right hon. Lady to use Back Benchers' time to avoid responding to questions?

It is a question of balance, and in the past we have done rather well. On one occasion we got through 15 questions to the Prime Minister.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would not some of these points be met, and would not we all get on much better, if the Opposition abandoned their consistent attempts, Tuesday after Tuesday, Thursday after Thursday, to prevent the Prime Minister from being heard, thus adding to the time it takes for my right hon. Friend to inform the House of her views?

Order. I think that it is generally acknowledged—and I say this with sadness—that the noise during Prime Minister's Question Time has increased. I have mentioned this in recent weeks. I hope that the House will take that very much to heart.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not only a matter for the Front Benches of the Labour party and a question of the Prime Minister taking up more time than my right hon. Friend. You should also take into account, Mr. Speaker, that whenever the Leader of the Social Democratic party is called he speaks with the same voice as the Prime Minister, so, in effect, you should subtract his time and add it on to the Government's.

I do take that into account, and I did so today.