asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a further statement about the implementation of the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date he expects the Anglo-Irish Agreement to come into force.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what he expects will be the date and time of the first Intergovernmental Conference to be called in accordance with the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will report on the progress in setting up the conference referred to in the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference will hold its first meeting.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement entered into force on Friday 29 November when formal notifications of acceptance were exchanged between Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government. The first meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference took place in Belfast on 11 December. The conference discussed relations between the security forces and the minority, the enhancement of security co-operation, the importance of public confidence in the administration of justice and economic development. A joint press statement was issued after the meeting. I have placed it in the Library and the Vote Office.

Now that the Secretary of State has let the cat out of the bag by claiming that the agreement virtually guarantees that there never will be a united Ireland and has made a fool of himself by claiming to speak on behalf of the Taoiseach, is it not clear that the agreement, far from being a lasting peaceful settlement, is hardly worth the paper that it is written on and that the only good that might come from it is if the good people of South Down get themselves a new Member of Parliament—that is, provided that the present incumbent has the guts to resign?

The last matter is obviously not for me. I made a statement in the House on the first matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. I stand by my view that the acceptance of the principle of consent by both Governments is an important development and should give considerable reassurance in those quarters where there has been some concern that the agreement in some way presages a slippery slope to a united Ireland. I made clear my view that the acceptance of the principle of consent by the Government of the Republic is important, and I gave my judgment that I did not think that that consent would be forthcoming.

My right hon. Friend referred to the principle of consent. For how long does he think an agreement can last so long as the majority of the people concerned refuse to give it their consent?

There have been some wild rumours about some of the implications of the agreement, but I hope it will be understood that, for instance, while it provides an opportunity for the minority views to be heard, there is no question of excluding the majority community from opportunities for their views to be fully taken into account. That is one of the fundamental misunderstandings that has been expressed. Real benefits will flow to the majority community if we can get enhanced co-operation on security as well. I hope that when that is understood there will be increasing acceptance of the merits of the agreement.

Does the Secretary of State agree that for the success of the proceedings to be ensured it would be better if there were not to be an excessive concentration on security matters to the exclusion of all else, because that is how it has been seen by the press and the public, certainly over here? Furthermore, will the Secretary of State say how the House can be of influence in what is discussed at the meetings?

I accept that the purpose of the agreement is to seek to help in peace and reconciliation. I make no apology for emphasising the importance of tackling the problems of terrorism. On today of all days, and with the recent outrages in Northern Ireland, the House will understand exactly what I mean. That is an important objective. We wish to achieve more reconciliation to help isolate the men of violence.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the Unionists in Northern Ireland that many of us who support their position from this side of Great Britain believe that the agreement is the best way forward in terms of security and politics? Will my right hon. Friend tell us that the best way to convince the Unionists in Northern Ireland of that is to pursue the joint enhancement of security first?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right. I repeat my statement that I am anxious to see ways in which the allegations of secrecy and lack of communication with the majority community can be defeated. If I am met by refusal to talk—a refusal that has existed since before any agreement was signed—it is difficult to establish better communications.

If the agreement is to be implemented, what steps does the Secretary of State intend to take to regain the confidence of the Ulster Unionists?

It is important to understand the merits of the work that has been done under the auspices of the agreement at the conference and to understand the role of the conference, which is to deal with cross-border security co-operation and cross-border economic co-operation, which is a matter between two Governments. It also gives an opportunity for the minority voice to be heard, but it is in no sense a substitution for the opportunity for a majority voice to be heard. I want to make that absolutely clear. I hope that we can get a positive approach and that it will be possible for the benefits of the agreement to come forward. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point. It is obviously an important requirement.

If, in the months ahead, it becomes increasingly clear to the Government that the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement are completely unacceptable to the majority in Northern Ireland and to all Unionists there, what will the Government do? How can they then renegotiate the terms of the agreement?

I understand my hon. Friend's feelings on the issue, but I do not think that that problem arises. The most amazing stories have been told about the agreement, involving the disbandment of the Ulster Defence Regiment and changes of uniform for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They are all wholly untrue and without foundation. They have stirred up much alarm and concern. I believe that the agreement does offer benefits and can be helpful to the community. I hope that those benefits will be increasingly recognised.

Is the Secretary of State repudiating without cavil the remarks of Mr. Seamus Mallon this morning that the UDR will be disbanded following yesterday's meeting?

I have paid tribute to the essential role played by the UDR. They are men of considerable bravery, conducting a key role in security. One of the most recent developments announced by the commander of the UDR is an enhancement of the regiment, including improved training facilities, which I hope all who support the UDR will welcome.

While I fully understand that my right hon. Friend has to consider the possibility of establishing joint courts, will he take into account the patent absurdity of having a Southern Irish judge dispensing Her Majesty's justice? That may not give a great deal of reassurance to the Unionists, whom we are seeking desperately to reassure.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. He may know that while the matter can be examined under the terms of the conference, we have made it clear publicly and officially, and to the Irish Government, that we see no early or easy prospect of that being achieved, that there is no commitment to it whatsoever and that, in any case, we require scrutiny by experts, who will include the Northern Ireland judiciary. If it did apply at all, it would have to apply to both jurisdictions. Let me make it absolutely clear that there is no commitment to it whatsoever.

Now that the Minister has changed his mind, under pressure, about the border lasting in perpetuity, does he visualise it lasting for the next 40 years, until the children of the Catholic minority, who have more children in school at the moment, have grown up? Does the right hon. Gentleman visualise the killing going on throughout those 40 years, or does he have a plan, other than what has been done for the past 17 years that will stop the killing?

I have not changed my mind at all. I gave my opinion frankly to the House, and I stand by it. The hon. Gentleman is committing one of the easiest errors to make, by assuming that no Catholics are Unionists. A significant number of Catholics are Unionists, and would wish to belong to the Unionists. Merely to identify Protestants and Catholics as if that determined who might be in support of or against the Unionists is incorrect. My judgment, for historical, attitudinal and economic reasons, is that the majority for staying part of the United Kingdom will remain. That is my view, and I welcome that.

Does my right hon. Friend not do himself and the Government a great injustice by suggesting that only now, because a Minister of the Irish Republic is installed in the inner councils of Northern Ireland, the voice of the minority can be heard? Have not the House and the Government been listening to the minority for years and been trying to help them and adjust any grievances that they might have? In this dangerous situation, is not the morale of the RUC all-important? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that no code of conduct was agreed with another Government, having regard to the splendid record of the RUC in hunting down the so-called Loyalist murder gangs and acting in a non-sectarian and proper fashion?

What my hon. Friend said at the start of his question was correct. Of course Governments have tried. The query, and the concern, is whether we have managed to achieve the confidence that is necessary for reconciliation. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the latter point. It is entirely a matter for the Chief Constable. It is well known that the Metropolitan police have introduced a code of conduct, and other United Kingdom police forces are doing so. It is made clear in the communiqué34 that the Chief Constable advised the conference that for some time he had been preparing, and would introduce as soon as possible, a code. That is the position. I was interested to hear that from the Chief Constable. It is entirely in line with developments in United Kingdom police forces.

Will that proposed code of conduct be made public, unlike the code of conduct that followed the Bennett recommendations? Reverting to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), since the conference discussed how it should approach its future programme of work, will the Secretary of State give the House an idea of the subjects likely to be discussed over the next few months, in addition to security and legal matters?

Those matters are contained in the communiqué and in the statement that we produced after it. The work on cross-border co-operation will continue and develop. The work referred to in the programme includes measures to improve relations between the security forces and the minority community and the creation of a working group of officials to establish machinery for further discussions on legal matters. The publication of the code of conduct is a matter for the police authority, but I should have thought it very desirable for it to be published. It is a matter for the authority, but I assume that it will be published.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he is currently having with representatives of the Unionist community about the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent consultations he has had with representatives of the political parties in Northern Ireland on the establishment of the Intergovernmental Conference provided for under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Unionist elected representatives decided on 14 November, in protest at the agreement, that they would not communicate with my right hon. Friend or other Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office. We deplore this decision, which cannot serve the interests of the majority community. However, the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend discussed the agreement with a delegation of Unionist Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly on 25 November.

Will my hon. Friend give a yet further and more specific reassurance that, in the event of discussions reopening with the leaders of the Unionist community, and in all the discussions that take place about the agreement, it will be made abundantly plain that it will be taken fully into account that there are legitimate Unionist aspirations and understandable Unionist concerns, and that this has always been and always will be the case?

We have been at pains to make it clear that our respect is accorded to both traditions in Northern Ireland. We bitterly regret that the Unionist representatives are not making use of the many channels that are open to them for communicating their views to this Government. We shall persist in our attempts to persuade them to do so.

Will the Minister recognise that it is not very helpful simply to deplore the action of the Ulster Unionists, and that he might do better to recognise that the setting up by the Government of the Intergovernmental Conference is being opposed by constitutional means?

I welcome that, certainly, and I would expect nothing less from elected Members of this House and from other representatives of the Unionist community. I am sure that that is something that we look forward to being continued. I understand the worries of the Unionists, but I wish that they would come and discuss their worries with us.

If, as seems probable, the Assembly comes to an end in the fairly near future, would it not be a good idea to give Northern Ireland a Select Committee in this House so that Unionist Members and others from Northern Ireland could go over the details of such policies as are required for the Province, particularly those that will spring from the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

My hon. Friend raises essentially a hypothetical question. I very much hope that it will be possible for the Assembly to continue. Since its establishment it has done a very useful job in Northern Ireland and I hope that it will be able to continue to do so.

What is the point of the Anglo-Irish Agreement if it provokes sectarian murders and increases the risk of civil war?

Frankly, I do not believe that that is the case. I hope that there will be a sensible implementation of this agreement so that we are able to reflect the views of the minority in the decision-making process in Northern Ireland, and so that we can establish improved security cooperation. That is the only basis upon which we shall be able to move forward on the political, the security and ultimately the economic front in Northern Ireland.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I shall take it later.

On that question, Mr. Speaker Did an Ulster Unionist not seek to catch your eye on that question?

No.

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 further statement about the security situation in the Province.

Since I last answered questions in the House on 14 November two civilians and five members of the security forces have died as a result of the security situation in the Province. I am sure the whole House will join me in condemning these murders. Although they continue to bear the brunt of terrorist attacks, the security forces carry out their duties with great courage and dedication. As a result of their efforts, since the beginning of the year a total of 495 people have been charged with serious offences, including 24 with murder, and 216 weapons, 12,826 rounds of ammunition and 7,706 1b of explosives have been recovered.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether he considers that co-operation on security matters may come to include advance information from the South and advance intelligence that may help us to head off tragic attacks like last night's attack?

Before the conference met, I believed that there was scope for benefits to come from enhanced security co-operation. We had a detailed discussion yesterday and I am now more than ever persuaded that there can be real benefits. It simply cannot make sense, with the problems posed by the border, that we should not have the closest possible co-operation when terrorism presents a very serious threat north and south of the border.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people who are most violently opposed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement are the members of the IRA? This has been clearly illustrated by the terrorist attacks in the past few weeks in the Province. How does my right hon. Friend expect greater co-operation with the Irish Government to improve security?

The figures that I have cited on the outrages, including the more recent incidents, the scale of success in recovering weapons and ammunition and the people charged show the size of the challenge that we still face. I would rather not go into detail about how I see particular approaches developing this co-operation. The statement contained a welcome announcement of the increased resources that the Garda will deploy on the border.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that all the evidence shows that there is no solution to this security problem? Does he agree that the real cause of the problem is the British presence in Northern Ireland and that there will never be peace while that presence exists? Does he agree that there must be a declaration that Britain intends to withdraw from Northern Ireland and to stop treating Ireland as a colony? Only a united Ireland will bring peace. Why do the Irish people not have the same right to self-determination as people in this or any other country?

The hon. Lady holds her own particularly individual views on this matter. I could not disagree with her more. Her views are not shared by the Irish Government, either. They have recognised in the agreement that it is inconceivable that there should be a united Ireland without the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland. That is an absolutely accurate perception.

Should it not be clearly seen that the terrorism in Northern Ireland over the years is completely condemned by hon. Members? All our sympathy goes out to the relatives of those who have been murdered, whether by the IRA or by the terrorists on the other side of the sectarian divide. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many of us believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is a limited step forward in the right direction? Will the Government pledge that, whatever the position in the 1986 by-elections, they will stick to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that they will not back down or allow themselves to be blackmailed?

The agreement was reached between Governments. It has now been approved by both Houses of Parliament. Obviously we must respect that position.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his latest estimate of the amount of recoverable reserves of lignite in Northern Ireland; how soon he estimates that this will become commercially available; and what assessment has been made of the amount of coal currently imported from Great Britain for use in (a) power stations and (b) the domestic sector in the Province which could be displaced by the exploitation of lignite.

It is estimated that there are 130 million tons of lignite recoverable from the onshore portion of the deposit at Crumlin and substantially more in other deposits which have not yet been fully assessed. Large-scale mining of lignite is unlikely to begin before the early to middle 1990s, although smaller quantities of processed lignite could be produced sooner. The impact upon the Northern Ireland solid fuel market of any form of lignite cannot yet be assessed.

I thank my hon. Friend for that full reply. What plans does his Department have to convert power stations to lignite? How many jobs will be generated in that industry and in support industries by the extraction of lignite?

Arrangements have been made for plans to be drawn up for a lignite-fired power station at the mouth of the mine near Crumlin. About £1 million was allocated to the Northern Ireland electricity service to make those plans ready. Arrangements have been made at Kilroot, which has transferred from oil to coal, to convert, if necessary, to lignite. It is difficult to assess how much employment will be generated. Building the new power station will provide considerable employment over three or four years.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present level of unemployment in the Province; how that compares with May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are currently unemployed in the six counties.

At 14 November 1985 there were 120,563 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland, representing 20.7 per cent. of employees. This compares with an estimated claimant figure of 58,100 at May 1979, representing 10.1 per cent. of employees. The number of unemployed in November was 1,259 lower than in October, due mainly to a fall in the number of unemployed school leavers.

Is the Minister aware that sectarianism, like racism, breeds in conditions of mass unemployment, especially when it is coupled, as it is in Northern Ireland, with low wages and poverty? Is he further aware that all Socialists and Marxists would condemn the recent death threats against the thousands of building workers in the North but, rather than any programme for building Royal Ulster Constabulary stations, the North needs a massive programme of building houses, schools and hospitals, a reversal of the closure of the gas industry and means of improving the conditions of daily life for Catholics and Protestants alike? That is the way to defeat sectarianism.

I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman regrets the loss of employment because of IRA threats to those building new or replacement police stations. The police stations exist to protect people in both communities in Northern Ireland. They are not there to protect some Marxist Government that might take over one day. We deplore the high rate of unemployment. The Government are doing all that they can. With Government money, the Industrial Development Board provided 5,000 more jobs last year. The Local Enterprise Development Unit provided 4,000 more jobs, and another 15,000 jobs were kept going by Government money. Unemployment has not been created by lack of Government money. We want more private investment. I would welcome anything that the hon. Gentleman could do in that regard within his philosophical bounds.

As Northern Ireland is essentially a class issue rather than a religious one, what efforts has the Minister made to secure the presence of John De Lorean—one of his whizz kids—to face justice there and to explain why he created so much unemployment and havoc in the Province?

I cannot agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. There is obviously a religious factor in Northern Ireland, and anybody who does not believe that cannot have been there. We can deplore it or accept it, but it most certainly exists. As for John De Lorean, investment was backed initially by a Labour Government and the decision was supported by the Conservative Government because of massive unemployment in the Catholic sector of Belfast. I pay tribute to the Government of the day for trying to introduce investment, although it was undoubtedly the wrong investment and we do not want any more De Loreans or Lear Fans. We want gilt-edged firms, which can provide employment for all sectors of the community.

What success has my hon. Friend's Department had in developing interest in the United States and securing investment from the United States? How many jobs have come to the Province as a result of his Department's efforts in America?

One in eight people employed in manufacturing in Northern Ireland are employed by American firms, of which we have 26. Only three weeks ago we announced that DuPont, one of the most advanced firms in the world, is investing £45 million, which will provide an extra 350 jobs. I went over to America in September to try to get more investment. I trust that one of the fruits of the Anglo-Irish Agreement will be more American investment in both parts of Ireland, and more employment.

Does the Minister agree that one of the prime objectives of the new accord with the Republic is an improvement in the economic situation in the whole island of Ireland? What is happening at Harland and Wolff, and what are the hopes for new orders at the yard?

John Parker, the managing director of Harland and Wolff, tries regularly to get orders from all around the world. His order book is very creditable. With Shorts, Harland and Wolff is a flagship of the Province. The Government will give both companies all possible encouragement and support in their search for orders.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in the light of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, he will seek to reopen negotiations with the Irish Government on the supply of gas from the Kinsale gasfield; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. The Government announced in September 1984 that the Kinsale gas project would not proceed as it would not be economically viable for Northern Ireland. There have been no changes in the economic factors determining the viability of the project for Northern Ireland which would justify reopening negotiations. Price and particularly demand factors remain clearly detrimental. Many of the undertakings have decided to close, and consumers are aware of the level of assistance available to them to convert or replace town gas appliances.

If the Anglo-Irish Agreement is intended to provide a framework for discussing matters of serious concern to the people of Northern Ireland, has the Minister not grasped the fact that both employees and consumers are intensely worried about the future of the gas industry? If the Government of the Republic make proposals to discuss again the price of Kinsale gas, will the Minister at least respond by inquiring what captial may be made available, whether private or public, from Lloyds Bank or elsewhere, and meanwhile suspend the closures? Or is this one more subject where the Government have abdicated any attempt to govern the course of events?

The worst form of co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic would be if we were to agree immediately to a project which is not economically viable in Northern Ireland. By all means we shall discuss—

But Northern Ireland is not economically viable.

The Government are responsible for Northern Ireland. If our first economic co-operation initiative is not successful for Northern Ireland, it will spoil the whole atmosphere. The gas industry in Northern Ireland has been considered for closure for about 10 years, which includes the period of the Labour Government. There is no sign that it can be made viable. At present all the gas companies are moving towards closure.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Chief Constable of the Garda and the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary last met; and what further plans they have to meet.

The Chief Constable of the Royal Usher Constabulary and the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana met on 2 December and both attended the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference held yesterday. Plans for further meetings are a matter for those concerned.

Is the Minister aware that we welcome the new relationship between the Garda and the RUC, and believe that it will enable long-term security to improve in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that the scenes yesterday in Northern Ireland, with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) featuring in news reports last night, can do nothing to improve security in Northern Ireland? Will the Minister say what will be done to improve longer-term co-operation in Northern Ireland, including the establishment of the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier?

The Anglo-Irish interparliamentary tier is a matter for the House. There is a motion on the Order Paper, and that is the concern of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. If the House responds, I am sure that the Government will feel able to respond to that. I agree that in the co-operation between the two police forces we are looking, not for overnight improvements or solutions, but for a long-term pattern of co-operation. That, primarily, must rest with the heads of the two police forces.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the public response so far in the United Kingdom to the terms and implications of the Anglo-Irish Agreement on consultation on Northern Ireland matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received opposing the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

The Prime Minister and I have together received comments from 662 members of the public in response to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The majority of them expressed reservations about or opposition to the agreement, and come mainly from correspondents in Northern Ireland.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that our impression of British public opinion in the United Kingdom as a whole is of a strong commitment to the sense of the agreement, and of a hope that the Government will not be deflected from pursuing it resolutely, despite what happens in the Province? In that context, and in the context of yesterday's riots and disturbances, could someone in the Province take the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) aside— he is a busy member of three parliamentary institutions—and suggest that he must be too busy to indulge in demonstrations with street hooligans, which can do nothing to further the cause of peace in Northern Ireland?

I hope that the House will deplore the scenes of violence yesterday and the injuries suffered by several RUC members. There is widespread support for the agreement on the mainland. I recognise also — I have said it frankly to the House—that there is great anxiety among Unionists in Northern Ireland about the implications of the agreement. However, those anxieties are exaggerated. The agreement has merit and will operate in a way that is not detrimental to the majority. I trust that the majority do not oppose the views of the minority being heard. If that is the case, I hope that we can achieve a better understanding of the agreement and greater sympathy between the views of some in Northern Ireland and those in the rest of the United Kingdom on the merits of the agreement.

The Secretary of State will be aware that many Labour Members who voted against the agreement did so because it legitimises the border for the first time in international law. Will he explain his recent statement on the stance of the Taoiseach on Irish unity and partition?

Both Governments affirmed in the agreement the principle of consent: that there would be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the agreement of the majority. I have made absolutely clear my judgment that its consent for change will not be forthcoming and that it will be the desire of the majority to remain part of the United Kingdom. Others take a different view, to which they are entitled. I stand by my previous statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if there are any plans to change the strip-searching regime in Armagh prison.

No, Sir.

Why not? Is the Minister aware that although it is acceptable to strip-search people leaving and entering prison when they have been outside the control of the authorities, be they the prison authorities or the RUC, any other strip-searching is vindictive and oppressive and will do nothing to help to improve relations between prison authorities and prisoners?

It is worth recalling the facts. During the six months from May to October 1985 there was only one strip-search of a remand prisoner attending Armagh court house. It is worth drawing to the attention of the House the fact that the Whitaker committee of inquiry into the penal system in the Irish Republic concluded that there appears as yet

"to be no acceptable alternative means of guarding against bodily concealment of contraband."

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what effects he estimates the Anglo-Irish Agreement will have upon industrial co-operation between the two countries.

The Government believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement will create conditions which will foster the industrial progress of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The Intergovernmental Conference will provide an additional forum in which opportunities for mutually beneficial industrial co-operation may be identified.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he assure me that the success of companies such as Shorts will not be hindered by developments following the Anglo-Irish concord?

I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I trust that co-operation between the Irish Government and the United Kingdom Government over Northern Ireland will attract more contracts, not only to Shorts, but to other businesses, throughout both parts of Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision has been made to publish the conclusions arrived at in Intergovernmental Conference meetings.

The first meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference took place on 11 December and we released a joint press statement recording the subjects we discussed. I have placed the statement in the Library and the Vote Office. This will be our general practice in future.

Does the Secretary of State intend in due course, perhaps when times are a little quieter, to hold joint press conferences after such meetings?

Although the original discussions on the agreement took place in circumstances of confidentiality, I have made it clear that I want maximum openness about the matters being discussed. The views of the minority are important, but the views of the majority are crucial, too. There must be frank discussion of all the issues. I do not yet know whether we shall achieve that aim by holding joint press conferences. We shall have to develop the practice that seems most appropriate. I am anxious to keep the House and all the parties concerned well informed.

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

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) earlier today.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that essential repair work to police stations and the building of new prisons will not be held up in the Province because of terrorist activities? If necessary, will he get the job completed on time by bringing in labour contractors from the mainland?

We are determined to ensure that terrorist intimidation does not triumph, and we shall be anxious to take every practicable step that we can to ensure that proper attention is given to the restoration of necessary protection, where it has been damaged or destroyed, and that it is carried out as effectively as possible. My hon. Friend will not expect me to go into details, but we are most anxious to ensure that that happens.

How is it that Senator Noonan, the Irish Minister for Justice, could tell a huge American audience about a major and substantial role for Dublin in the day-to-day running of Northern Ireland? Have not different things been said to different people on the same subject, and is this not a geological flaw in the agreement?

The great beauty is that after all the words have been said there is an agreement, which speaks for itself and makes the position clear.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Is it not time that the Prime Minister stopped prevaricating about fraud in the City of London, especially as the Bank of England has just admitted that Johnson Matthey Bankers was involved in fraud? Will she take the opportunity to adapt the words of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who condemned the unacceptable and unpleasant face of capitalism? Will she condemn the unacceptable face of the City?

If there has been fraud, no one is more anxious than the Government that it should be tracked down and those responsible for it convicted and sentenced. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether to bring a fraud case, and it is vital that the decision should not be made by politicians. We shall do everything possible to ensure that the resources are available, and any inquiries such as that by Lord Justice Roskill will be put into action. We hope to have this report and publish it fairly soon.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who call for cuts in interest rates to reduce the pressure on, and the costs for, industry should also have regard to the pressures on industrial costs from the rise in the cost of importing raw materials, which flows from the deterioration in the sterling-dollar parity?

Yes, my hon. Friend has made a powerful point. We always need to have regard to the cost of raw materials, and if the exchange rate goes down, the cost of raw materials goes up and into the next round of costs, which makes exports less competitive in the following year.

Last night the Prime Minister publicly speculated about the prospect of tax cuts. Will she therefore answer the question which she avoided answering on 19 November? Will she confirm that, as the Government expect to receive £4.75 billion from the sale of British Gas and other assets next year, the proposed tax cuts will be wholly financed by the sale of those resources?

I said that tax cuts must be secondary to holding down inflation. Now is not the time to decide whether there are to be any cuts, and, as I pointed out about the proceeds of privatisation, even if there were none, and one treated the same amount as being borrowed, during the year the total amount of borrowing as a proportion of national income would be the lowest for 14 years.

If the right hon. Lady is saying, as she seems to be, that tax cuts next year are by no means certain, will she admit that, without an income of £4.75 billion from the sale of British Gas and other assets, there would be tax increases next year, not tax cuts?

I do not wonder that the right hon. Gentleman works so hard, knowing the Labour Government's appalling record on personal income tax. Even if we treat sales from privatisation as borrowings, we find that the PSBR this year will be the lowest since 1971–72 as a proportion of national income. The privatisation programme will continue because it is good for business, for employees, for shareholders and for Britain.

As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has referred to speeches that were made last night, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will have an early opportunity to make the speech which he was prevented from making by a deplorable, orchestrated and deliberate campaign by the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench?

I hope that my right hon. Friend will have an early opportunity to do so. I am sorry that the Opposition could not take his cogent remarks. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will continue with his customary robust style.

Does the Prime Minister realise that by continuing to defend a wholly unrealistic exchange rate she is putting British manufacturing industry in the same position in which she placed it in 1980–81 and risking the loss of a great part of our industrial capacity?

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk sterling down. I do not and I will not. I wish sterling to stay strong, and I am anxious that were it to go down the cost of raw materials would increase, which would have a damaging effect on British industry in the next round of its costings.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that it is thanks to the Government that Ravenscraig will continue producing steel? Does she agree that the future and the interests of the Scottish steel industry are ill served by Opposition Members abdicating their responsibilities in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Yes. I agree with both my hon. Friend's assertions. It is this Government who have done everything possible to save production at Ravenscraig over the current three-year plan. That is the only period on which we have pronounced, and we shall stand by that undertaking.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that her reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) will be extremely worrying to many outside the House who are perturbed at the apparent lack of concern and action by the Government regarding fraud in the City? Will she give a specific commitment that the Government will bring forward proposals in the Financial Services Bill to improve the regulation of the City and of Lloyd's?

The Government have done a great deal to improve the facilities that are available to combat fraud. It was this Government who set up the fraud investigation group. The Financial Services Bill will be introduced shortly by this Government. It was this Government who set up the Roskill commission to consider the future of juries in fraud trials. We shall continue to do all that we can to ensure that those who are guilty of fraud are brought to justice.

In view of the references to the unacceptable face of capitalism, did not the House see last night the unacceptable face of Socialism — the giggling, smirking face of Socialism— giggling and smirking in a debate on the serious problems of the inner cities? Will the country not draw its own conclusions?

I hope that the country will do just that.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

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

Does the Prime Minister recognise the contribution made by Cornish mining to the economy of Britain over hundreds of years, typified by today's announcement that English China Clays, operating in my constituency, made a profit of £75 million? Will the Government be offering some assistance to Cornish tin to prevent it being wiped out, and is she prepared to meet a delegation?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made it clear some weeks ago that steps should be taken to enable the legal commitments of the International Tin Council to be met. The latest meeting of that council is still in progress. We want an early return to orderly trading, with other countries meeting their proper commitments. While that meeting is in progress we cannot make any further statements.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

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

Will my right hon. Friend refuse to accede to the advice given to her last week by that first-rate comic and SDP groupie, Mr. John Cleese, to extend proportional representation from Northern Ireland to the mainland? Does she accept that PR has given Italy no fewer than 35 Governments since the war, has handed whole countries into the clutches of one-interest parties and would break the historic link between a Member of Parliament and his constituency? Does she further agree that if we must listen to comedians, "Yes, Minister" is preferable to "Yes, Manuel"?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and I assure him that this Government have no intention of introducing legislation to change the present electoral system, which has served this country well.

Has the Prime Minister had a chance to consider the carefully drafted words of the communiqué that preceded the announcement that the Irish Republic had already taken action on security on the border, in which it was said that they were taking those measures as a precaution and for reassurance, with no acceptance of the fact that they needed to take action against terrorists? What did they mean by that? Who were they trying to reassure and against whom were they taking precautions?

The meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference was a good start to the Anglo-Irish accord. Both sides are trying to do all they can to improve security, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at matters in that spirit.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to have discussions with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with a view to referring to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the bid by Argyll for the Distillers Company, which represents more than 50 per cent. of the entire Scottish whisky industry, which has enormous implications for employment throughout Great Britain, and which company provides about £1 billion to the Treasury, making this a matter of national interest?

As my hon. and learned Friend will be aware, my right hon. Friend will take advice from the Director General of Fair Trading and anyone else whom he wishes to consult. I shall draw my hon. and learned Friend's remarks to his attention, but in the end the decision is solely for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

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

May I refer the right hon. Lady to yesterday's mob violence in Northern Ireland and the incitement by certain Loyalist Members of this House? Their public statement suggests that they are bent on making Northern Ireland ungovernable, and they say that they will stop at nothing. What steps will she take, if necessary, to keep Northern Ireland governable?

I hope that we will give the new agreement a chance and say nothing that inflames opinion anywhere in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will take all steps possible to maintain law and order and to fight terrorism. I believe that as a result of the agreement greater steps on security will be taken. Having said that, the best thing is to give the agreement a chance.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that women widowed during pregnancy or shortly after childbirth are banned from receiving maternity allowance? Does she agree that it is tragic enough to lose one's husband at such a time, without being denied a benefit that all other mothers receive? If so, will she see our right hon. and mutual Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and ask him to reconsider the matter, as he has not so far proved sympathetic to it?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that point. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will give her a complete reply. If she looks into the matter, she will find that since the beginning of national insurance there has been something called "overlapping provisions" under which the same person cannot draw two benefits for maintenance. Under the circumstances that my hon. Friend has drawn to my attention, where there would seem to be a claim for widows' benefit and maternity allowance, the rules are that the person involved can take whichever is the higher of the two allowances. That rule has existed under the overlapping provisions since the national insurance scheme was introduced in the 1940s.