asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on investment in advanced technology in industry in Northern Ireland.

The Government offer a range of incentives to encourage efficient production. In 1985–86 over £54 million was paid in grants, supporting investment by industry in research, development and re-equipment of £181 million.

May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to the Northern Ireland Office and to welcome him to his responsibilities at the Dispatch Box? My pleasure is tinged with sadness because I now no longer have the pleasure of sharing an office with him. I wish him well in his duties.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. It is indeed an honour to serve in the Northern Ireland Office and a pleasure to do so with the present ministerial team.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the first year of operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

We have made steady progress. In particular, we have laid the foundation for closer co-operation on cross-border security and extradition arrangements, and we have discussed a number of matters concerned with increasing the confidence of the minority community in the institutions of government in Northern Ireland.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that many on both sides of the water welcome the agreement as a recognition that two Governments in one island necessarily have many interests in common and hope to see real benefits for people in both traditions? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that they want to applaud the agreement? I note what the right hon. Gentleman said, but when will he be able to point to some demonstrable dividends in the areas of job creation, equal opportunities, accountable local government and civil liberties?

We are seeking to make progress on a range of fronts. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's impatience in a number of areas, but he will know that some of the issues with which we are grappling are extremely complex and controversial, as they have been over the years, and, although many would like to go faster, the foundations have been laid for progress. For example, we have published an important consultation paper on equality of employment opportunities. We now see the setting up of the international fund, and only last night the House approved the amendment to the extradition treaty with the United States, which I am confident would not have gone forward as it has done without the existence of the Anglo-Irish agreement. Only this week we have seen the tabling in the Dail of the proposed Bill to ratify the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. Progress is now being made across a wide range.

Has the penalty of transportation to Australia been revived for Sir Robert Armstrong for his part in the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Is it the case that no Northern Ireland civil servants, as distinct from United Kingdom civil servants, had any part in the drawing up of that agreement?

I had better not tiptoe into the first part of that question, but I am sure that we shall welcome back Sir Robert Armstrong, whenever that may be. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is no.

Five weeks ago the Secretary of State told the House, in the context of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that he expected the Irish Republic's ratification of the European convention on the suppression of terrorism to go forward shortly. Has something gone wrong?

No, Sir. The Irish Minister of Justice signed the ratification document some time ago. However, the right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Bill was tabled in the Dail, thus commencing its parliamentary procedures, only this week.

The House no doubt welcomes my right hon. Friend's recollection that one of the prime objectives of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is greater cross-border co-operation on security matters. Will my right hon. Friend therefore get the message through to the Garda that Sundays are work days for the IRA? What was the Garda doing about patrolling the south side of the border last Sunday, at Middletown, when members of my old regiment were mortar bombed by the IRA?

I fully share my hon. Friend's concern about that incident and, indeed, I telephoned the Irish Minister of Justice about it on Sunday, but one must be fair and recognise that we are talking about, as far as I am aware, the first mortar attack to have taken place from the Irish Republic. I know that my hon. Friend would pay tribute to the security forces and to their efforts in Northern Ireland, but despite all our intensive efforts we have not been wholly successful in preventing mortar attacks that have been launched from within Northern Ireland. Obviously the attack mentioned by my hon. Friend was a very serious attack, and I take a very grave view of it. However, everyone in Northern Ireland will be most appreciative of the fact that the Garda only recently discovered two complete and fully-primed mortar sets which might otherwise have caused serious disruption.

The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that a continuing improvement in security is a crucial factor if the Anglo-Irish Agreement is to be seen to succeed. Consequently, what improvement has there been in security co-operation between the RUC and the Garda in the past 12 months, particularly in connection with cross-border operations?

There is now a completely agreed detailed threat assessment. There has been agreement between the Garda and the RUC on co-operation on intelligence matters and the methods to be used. A considerable amount of work is going on in connection with organisation, structure and communications. However, I know that the right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge, will understand when I say that I am not prepared to go into that in detail in public. I am satisfied with the advice that I have received, which is that because of closer co-operation we now have the best prospect of dealing more effectively with cross-border terrorism.

Does not the experience of the first 12 months show that instead of peace there has been strife, instead of stability, turmoil, and instead of reconciliation, added sectarian suspicion and division? What progress has my right hon. Friend made in securing from the majority community acceptance of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Obviously, I fully share the concern felt about the tensions and difficulties that exist within the Province, but my hon. Friend knows the history of Northern Ireland too well to suggest that somehow divisions and strife have suddenly broken out during the past year. We seek to move away from a tragic background that has existed for so many years, for whatever period my hon. Friend may select—say, for the past 17 years. The agreement genuinely offers a way forward, albeit in the face of tensions and deliberate opposition from interests which have never been prepared to accept any compromise or any move forward, whatever the direction. We can at last see a way forward that could work.

Will the Secretary of State tell the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who was complaining about imperfect security on the border, that the border is the same length on both sides? Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the recommendation made yesterday by the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights, a Government-appointed body, that to improve public perceptions of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland there should be three judges in the Diplock courts instead of one? Will the right hon. Gentleman take that recommendation into account in considering how the administration of justice, which he admits he is trying to improve, can be improved?

I shall certainly take note of the report. The hon. Gentleman will know that it was not a unanimous one, there being a note of dissident by two members of the standing advisory committee. The report does not question in any sense the quality of justice in Northern Ireland. Indeed, it points out the real problems that could exist. There is the idea that this is merely a matter of political attitudes, but there are real and practical problems. I can confirm that the matter is likely to be on the agenda for further discussion, and we have made no secret of our concern about the difficulties that exist.

Is it not the position that 12 months after the conclusion of the Anglo-Irish Agreement the majority community remains unalterably opposed to it? Does my right hon. Friend not consider that the best way forward is to find an agreement that is acceptable to the majority and in accordance with democratic principles, as well as being fair to the minority?

The objective of successive British Governments has been precisely that, but there has been an unwillingness by one party after another to entertain the proposals of successive Governments. Each party is equally guilty within the Northern Ireland scene of abstaining at one stage or another from the various initiatives that we have taken to try to find some way forward that would offer more positive opportunities. I regret the present attitude of the majority community, but my hon. Friend will recognise that while people may be critical one year about of a lack of achievement, they cannot be ignorant of the fact that many of the allegations, fears and misrepresentations that existed at the start of the agreement have been proved to be manifestly false. I hope that he will give us credit for that.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has held with representatives of local authorities in Northern Ireland.

Since 1 July Ministers held 16 meetings with groups that have included members of district councils. These meetings have enabled us to discuss a wide range of public service matters. I greatly regret that Unionist Members have failed to put ther views to me and my colleagues about matters affecting their constituents.

Is the Minister aware that some Unionist Members have been in the House to report their views to other hon. Members, and that that was a welcome initiative? Is he aware also that there is considerable interest in the possibility of developing local representative democracy, even if there is a stalemate on central institutions of government, to strengthen local control over local decision making?

I am glad to confirm that, as part of the devolution package which the Government have long put forward, that would certainly be well worth considering. If only members of the majority coummunity were prepared to come into negotiation with Ministers, including my ministerial colleagues, that is something that we would wish to consider.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the present position is completely unsatisfactory as a long-term objective? In effect, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is acting as viceroy, the local authorities have no powers, and those who are supposed to come to this place to represent their constituents do not come.

It is a great pity that local representatives do not come to this place, and responsibilities go considerably wider than I would wish. As I have said before, it is extremely important in negotiating any package of devolution that we do so on the broadest possible scale.

We welcome the prospect of devolution in Northern Ireland and any talks to that effect. Will the Minister confirm that any talks held with representatives of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland will not mean the suspension of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

I shall speak to anybody who comes to my door. It will be done under the exising framework of government. I only wish that they would try to find a way to my door.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the time may well be right to consider setting up in Northern Ireland a similar structure of local government to that which obtains in the rest of the United Kingdom, the more so since there is no longer the Assembly?

As I said, if it is part of a package of devolution measures, I am sure that it would make sense. I would be only too happy to devolve some of my existing responsibilities, which I am sure many of the people in Northern Ireland think are already too heavy.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will be in a position to make a statement on the inquiry by Mr. Colin Sampson into matters connected with the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to make a statement on the Sampson report on the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

I reported to the House on 23 October the progress being made by Mr. Sampson. I shall at the earliest appropriate time make a statement on any matters arising from the report that fall within my responsibilities.

Does the Minister not realise that the slowness of the Government to react in a democratic manner by clearing the air when there has been wide publicity everywhere leads people to think that their suspicions that the Government are concealing something are very real? Why, in Heaven's name, have the Government subjected the deputy chief constable of Manchester to all that suspicion, and his family and another family and large numbers of people to misery, when they can clear the air by giving a proper report about what has happened so far?

The hon. Gentleman can ask a question, such as that only if he is completely oblivious of my previous answer. He appears to be unaware that Mr. Sampson's report came forward on 22 October. It has been with the Chief Constable. It is now with the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. The second report will be coming forward shortly. Those are obviously serious matters, which may lead to criminal proceedings. There is no question of the Government jumping in and reaching arbitrary decisions in advance. There are proper procedures which have to be observed. The proper process of law will be carried through. I have made clear my concern that the matter should be proceeded with at the earliest opportunity and that there should be no avoidable delay. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the matter of the deputy chief constable of Manchester is nothing to do with me, but is entirely for the Manchester police authority.

The Secretary of State must recognise that taking the deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester out of that inquiry led to the widespread belief that there was some kind of conspiracy, some attempt to cover up, or some attempt to ensure that the areas he was investigating were not reached. The Secretary of State must recognise the major concern, not just on this side of the water, but in Ireland as well, about those consequences. Can he guarantee that he will be prepared to give the very fullest account of the mechanisms by which John Stalker was taken out of the inquiry and the responsibilities of those involved in Her Majesty's Inspectorate on both sides of the water?

I bitterly regret the fact that the inquiry could not have proceeded much more speedily and that there was this unfortunate interruption. The hon. Gentleman seems equally unaware of the background and procedures. The position simply was that the inquiry was proceeding at the request of the Chief Constable of the RUC, who had appointed Mr. Stalker to head that inquiry. He then received information from the Chief Constable of Manchester that Mr. Stalker was no longer available to continue the inquiry. Against that background, the Chief Constable of the RUC took immediate steps to ensure that the inquiry proceeded by appointing somebody else to continue to conduct it. The question about the suspension of Mr. Stalker was a decision taken in Manchester by the Manchester police authority. It is not a matter for me.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the inquiry has been carried out thoroughly and professionally?

My hon. Friend will understand that it is not possible at this stage to reach that judgment. The reports have been with the Chief Constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have not yet seen the first report. The second report will be coming forward shortly. I shall want to address a number of matters, if appropriate, and make a statement to the House on them. Obviously, this is part of the background that I shall want to consider.

The Secretary of State will be aware that six people from County Armagh were killed in those incidents in 1982. Does he agree that a four-year lapse before inquests are held would not be tolerated in any other part of this jurisdiction? Does he further agree that until this matter is cleared up in a positive and just way the only losers in this whole saga will have been those people who were killed, their relatives and the RUC?

These incidents, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, relate to matters that took place four years ago. As I made clear earlier, I am most concerned that these matters should be resolved and any appropriate decisions taken at the earliest opportunity. There is no benefit whatsoever in delay.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to involve the residents of Divis and the local community in decisions on the rehousing of residents following the demolition of the Divis flats.

This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. However, I have been informed by the chairman that staff from the Housing Executive's Belfast region have already met the Divis Residents Association and other local groups and have arranged for continuing regular meetings to consult on the detailed development of plans for that area.

Lest the punishment regime of the people of the Divis community appears to be unduly prolonged, will the Minister urge on the Housing Executive the need to start the demolition and new building as soon as possible? Will he ensure that there is the earliest possible consultation?

Of course, now that the decision has been made, it would be the desire of all of us to see the Divis blocks removed as quickly as possible. However, I must stress that that will take a considerable period of years because of the problems of space and of money. I shall ensure, of course, that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive enters into close consultation. I shall keep a close eye on the matter, but it is the responsibility of the Housing Executive.

I heard the Minister say "Now that the decision has been made". Is he aware that the residents of the Divis fear that the Housing Executive might go back on its promise to demolish the Divis flats? Will he give an absolute undertaking that that will not happen? Will he consider his Department arranging a grant to the Town and Country Planning Association to continue its work with the Divis residents to come up with plans for rebuilding that are acceptable to the people currently living in the Divis flats?

I assure the hon. Lady that I do not think that there is any chance of the Housing Executive going back on its recommendations. I can see no possible reason why it should do that. In relation to the second part of the hon. Lady's question, consultation with the Divis Residents Association is a duty of the Housing Executive. I am sure that it will do that adequately and professionally.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what expenditure on university education in Northern Ireland is planned for the financial year 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

The Government will provide £72 million for the two universities and the Open University in 1986–87. Details of provision for 1987–88 are not yet available, but I will ensure that the University Grants Committee, in its advice to the Department of Education on the appropriate grant allocations to the two universities, will take account of the additional resources for universities recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

While the education community in Northern Ireland will welcome the Minister's £72 million forecast of expenditure, what is the Minister to make of the forecast that Queens university is to face cuts in recurrent resources over the next four years of about £5·2 million? Does he agree that the economic and industrial base of Northern Ireland is less than it is in Great Britain, and that research income is not likely to be forthcoming? If monetarism is as dead as a dodo on the mainland, why should it be flourishing in Northern Ireland?

I can confirm that the grant to Queens university will increase by some 10 per cent. below the average uplift provided for the system over that period. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the university, as an autonomous institution, has to determine how to match its provision with the resources provided. The hon. Gentleman will be aware—and if not I can give him the information—of the steps that the university is taking to broaden its base as a United Kingdom university and to seek industrial funds to help its research programme.

As higher education in Northern Ireland has recently been reorganised and a new university campus established in Derry, does the Minister agree that it would be unfortunate and unfair if, at such an early stage, the new campus were subject to severe cuts which would hinder developments that have been guaranteed? Will he ensure that that does not happen?

As I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows, the increase for the University of Ulster for 1986–87 is 4·9 per cent., which is above the rate of inflation. In the period covered by the main question the increase for the University of Ulster will be 16 per cent. above the average.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans exist for changes in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

A number of changes in the system have been implemented in the last year or so, including the introduction of measures to eliminate avoidable delays between first remand and trial and the making of an order to increase the Attorney-General's discretion to certify that in particular cases scheduled offences should be tried before juries.

Does the Minister agree that there is something to be said for accepting Sir George Baker's recommendations on restoration of trial by jury, which do not go much further than we have gone already? Is he aware that it would be welcome if he went at least that far, or even, in my view, rather further? Will he also give a commitment that the supergrass trial system will be stopped in the near future, as it is undermining confidence in both the Republican and the Unionist community?

Bearing in mind the situation in Northern Ireland, it is important that the Government should seek continuously to ensure that the changes that are necessary in the Province to deal with the administration of justice vary as little as possible from the system in Great Britain. When our Bill on the emergency legislation is introduced, the hon. Gentleman will see that we are going a little further in that direction, and we are continually looking for further improvements.

Does my hon. Friend agree that recent calls for changes in the nature of the Northern Ireland judiciary have been misguided? Does he agree that it is essential to maitain the Diplock system and that we should pay tribute to the judges in every court in Northern Ireland for the impartial way in which they administer justice in the most difficult circumstances imaginable?

I echo wholeheartedly my hon. Friend's tribute to the judges and others involved in the administration of justice in the Province in most difficult and trying circumstances. Nevertheless, we must always look for improvements. As my hon. Friend knows, the administration of justice is on the agenda for the next meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference.

Is the Minister aware of the activities of some Members of this House in strutting along the streets of Northern Ireland in red berets, forming armies and provoking people to further violence? When will positive legislation be introduced to deal with incitement to violence or hatred by the spoken word, by marches or by the use of any emblem?

I am certainly concerned about some displays that have taken place in Northern Ireland, but it is very much a matter for the police, the prosecuting authorities and, in due course, the courts to decide whether there has been a breach of the law. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we propose to introduce a public order order covering some of the matters to which he referred. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement about that in the not too distant future.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has plans to meet the chairmen of the regional health boards in Northern Ireland.

I plan to meet the chairmen of health and social services boards early in the new year to discuss the regional strategic plan for the development of services over the next five years.

When the Minister meets the chairman of the boards, will he stop pressing or obliging them to privatise hospital ancillary services? Does he accept that the real problems arise because there is a need for more resources for the Health Service in Northern Ireland? Will he halt attempts by the Government to increase the profits of private suppliers at the expense of patients?

There are considerably more resources in the Health Service in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and I am delighted that that is so. There has been no sudden change in our policy to increase pressure to privatise. We are continuing with the policy that we introduced two years ago. The requirements are the same as for the rest of the United Kingdom. We are testing the effectiveness of services on the public side of the Health Service against the private sector. Due to the smallness of the private sector in Northern Ireland, there are not that many facilities—unfortunately, in my view—that are likely to be privatised. Nevertheless, as a result of our policies, substantial savings have been made and these have led to an increase in the amount of money available to assist in the care of patients.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he has not noticed all the furore over the past few weeks about privatisation? Is it not the case that any savings from privatisation will come from cutting jobs, squeezing wage rates, reducing the number of hours for which people are paid and sacrificing services? Does he maintain that that is the way to maintain the standards of service to patients?

I do not know where the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been in the last few weeks, but I suspect that he has not been very near Northern Ireland, because there has been no furore there about these matters. I have explained to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we are continuing with the policy that we adopted two years ago, and as a result of that policy we have made substantial and sensible savings that have benefited the patients and clients of the Health Service in Northern Ireland. We shall continue with that policy.

asked the Ssecretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to encourage smaller businesses in Northern Ireland.

The Government provide a comprehensive range of assistance, training and support to encourage the small business sector. I recently announced an increase in the budget of the Local Enterprise Development Unit from £17 million to £21 million a year in order to enable it to provide further assistance for the development of existing small firms.

Does the Minister agree that after the devastating announcement by Harland and Wolff it is more important than ever to encourage indigenous entrepreneurs and community-based small businesses? Will he do what he can to support the enterprise allowance scheme and local enterprise programmes?

In connection with the first point raised by my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the adaptability of the management and the work force at Harland and Wolff and wish them well in winning further orders, because that is the only way forward for the company. My hon. Friend also spoke about the local enterprise programme and the enterprise allowance scheme. I pay tribute to the large number of business men, academics, trade unionists and others who give their voluntary efforts to a number of groups and schemes to promote enterprise and employment. Their practical assistance and guidance are of special value in encouraging smaller businesses.

Following the 800 redundancies at Harland and Wolff, is there not a great danger that that company will become one of the smaller businesses which the Minister is supposed to be encouraging? Will he give a commitment to continue to provide financial assistance to Harland and Wolff to enable it to get Ministry of Defence work?

The Government have shown their commitment to Harland and Wolff in the announcement made yesterday about the large external financing limit. The way ahead for Harland and Wolff is to win further orders, and the company is very efficient and in a good position to do that.

Some 800 men will lose their jobs at Harland and Wolff. Is that not a direct consequence of Tory policies? The Tory onslaught on the Northern Ireland economy is affecting the lives of ordinary men and women there, and that is why 800 men at Harland and Wolff have lost their jobs.

The hon. Gentleman is less than fair. The Government have shown their commitment to Harland and Wolff. We have a high regard for the management of the company and wish it well.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will list the known sources of funding of the Irish Republican Army as communicated to his office.

The main sources of finance for the Provisional IRA are believed to be the profits gained from paramilitary-controlled social clubs and gaming machines, extortion and protection rackets, frauds, armed robberies throughout Ireland, commercial enterprises run for the benefit of paramilitaries, and overseas contributions.

Why did the Minister not place the proceeds from kidnapping on that list?

There is no reason to believe that kidnap payments are a regular or major source of finance for the Provisional IRA.

Has my hon. Frend had any discussions with the Government of the Republic of Ireland as a result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to try to control the amount of funds coming to the IRA from south of the border?

We are determined to see that, through co-operation with the authorities throughout Ireland, security forces as well as Government Departments, we block off all sources as quickly as possible.

Surely the worst culprit in regularly financing the Provisional IRA both with cash and arms is Noraid and its organisations in the United States of America. Will the Minister therefore enlighten the House about the extent to which it is still annually financing the provisional IRA?

To far too great an extent. I have to say that we are getting very good co-operation from the American Administration and law enforcement agencies on the other side of the Atlantic, both in controlling Noraid as an organisation, monitoring its accounts, and in ensuring that money is not used to buy arms to murder Irishmen north and south of the border.

What evidence does my hon. Friend have to show that the Governments of Syria and Libya are involved in supplying money and arms to the IRA or are conniving to do so?

There is clear evidence that over the years Libya has been supplying both money and arms to the IRA. We continue to seek to monitor that and to prevent such arms or such money from reaching the IRA.

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

Since I last answered questions in the House on 23 October, one police officer and two civilians have died as a result of the security situation in the Province.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a mass resignation of councillors will only increase tension and make the job of the security forces more difficult?

I certainly would say that I have never quite understood the point of resigning and allowing the people whom one sought to oppose and stood against at an election to take over one's responsibilities, which otherwise they would not have had a chance to do. I certainly think that there is a valuable role for people to play within the government in Northern Ireland.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the problem of security in Northern Ireland is not helped when the leader and deputy leader of the Democratic Unionist party openly incite loyalist paramilitary organisations to violence? When will he and the Prime Minister start treating the leadership of that party exactly as they treat Sinn Fein? The only difference is that one takes the money but does not come here, while the other does not take the money and does not come here.

We are absolutely satisfied that the security forces, particularly the RUC, will take appropriate action if offences such as those described by the hon. Lady are committed. It is the duty of all people in constitutional parties within Northern Ireland to support the security forces, and I hope that members of the SDLP will reconsider very directly the comments they have made about support for the RUC, and make absolutely unequivocal their support for it.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the security forces, police and Army, have been (a) murdered and (b) injured in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

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

Will my hon. Friend look back with regret at the growing number of members of the security forces and others within Northern Ireland who have been tragically murdered in the past five years? Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest problem with maintaining cross-border security is that many of our security forces have been deterred from preventing incursions breaching cross-border security because of the Ulster Resistance Movement's activities under the leadership of the leader of the Democratic Unionist party? Should we not try to stop the security people from being taken away from the important task of protecting our borders, thus ensuring that the people of Northern Ireland are properly protected? Should we not be prepared to stand up and protect this country and Northern Ireland?

I agree totally with my hon. Friend. Those who engage in street disorder and demonstrations divert the RUC from its task of fighting terrorism and are not contributing to the peace and security of the Province.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to a question by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) earlier today.

Was it at the Intergovernmental Conference that Mr. Peter Barry was helpful enough to recommend enlistment for the RUC? Was it not then deplorable for the SDLP to give contrary advice? Does not the Anglo-Irish Agreement please it, either?

It was in a public broadcast that the Irish Foreign Minister made absolutely clear his support, not only for the Catholic minority community joining the RUC, but for supporting the institutions of government in the Province. I very much welcomed that statement, and, as I made clear in an earlier answer, I very much hope that the SDLP will support it as well.

Does the Secretary of State accept that a considerable factor in the violence over the past 12 months has been a deliberate campaign organised by elements of the Loyalist community to blackmail the Government to back down from decisions which have overwhelmingly been endorsed in the House?

I am certainly aware of the attempts of certain people to intimidate the Government and the security forces. I am also aware of the outstanding role that the RUC has played in defending minority communities against violence. It is scant recompense for the RUC not to receive the support and approval of the SDLP.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.

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.

Do not all those who work for British intelligence owe a life-long duty of confidentiality to the Crown? Is it not the duty of the Government of the day and of Opposition parties to uphold that fundamental principle and not to relegate it for party political purposes?

My hon. Friend is right. Hitherto, Governments of all parties have upheld that fundamental principle. Otherwise, the effectiveness of the security service would be undermined. I pay tribute to the overwhelming majority of those in the security service who recognise their obligations and duty of confidentiality.

May I warmly endorse both the last question and answer? Will the Prime Minister tell us, whether the decision not to impede publication of Mr. Pincher's book in 1981 was taken personally by the Attorney-General, whether the decision to put Sir Robert Armstrong in court in Australia, was taken personally by the Attorney-General?

As I said to the House last Thursday, it would be inappropriate for me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—to comment on matters which may arise in the proceedings concerning the Peter Wright case in Australia while those proceedings continue. On the general question of security matters, I shall follow the precedent set by previous Prime Ministers and, I understand, set out in "Erskine May", of not commenting on security matters.

This is a specific question about the decisions and responsibilities inside the Government that has no implication whatsoever for matters of national security. Although it does not raise questions about national security, it raises questions about the competence and integrity of the Government. Will the Prime Minister give a straight answer to a straight question? Did the Attorney-General personally take either or both of those decisions? In these matters, has the Attorney-General been a fool or a fall guy?

The right hon. Gentleman's question is totally unworthy. [HON MEMBERS: "Answer."] On the general question of security, I shall follow the precedent set by previous Prime Ministers and, I understand, upheld in "Erskine May", of not commenting on security matters.

The Prime Minister must, then, now explain what is the implication for national security of telling us whether it was an individual member of her Government who personally—not nominally and formally, but personally—took a decision that has a direct effect on the integrity of national security in this country.

The Government, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, are indivisible. [Interruption.] The decisions are decisions of the Government and not of particular Ministers. If he wishes to table a motion of censure, he is fully entitled to do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware, when she is today considering some of the nonsense on security matters appearing on the Order Paper, that one of the names on the Order Paper is that of Sir Arthur Franks, who is a most distinguished public servant with a gallant war record? Any innuendoes against such persons under the cloak of parliamentary privilege are disgraceful.

I agree with my hon. Friend. How the Order Paper is treated is a matter for the House of Commons.

As it was the Prime Minister who broke the precedent of all previous Prime Ministers when she answered questions on the Floor of the House on security issues, will she now reconsider the necessity for the House to have a better way of scrutinising the security services than using the Order Paper or the Floor of the House of Commons? The right hon. Lady has been offered the opportunity to move this issue away from partisanship and to put it into a Select Committee made up of right hon. and hon. Members of both parties. In that way, the sort of exchange to which the Prime Minister has objected could be overcome.

The right hon. Gentleman often proposes in Opposition what he did not have in office. We understand why—he is doing it for party political reasons. I repeat: the practice and custom of all Prime Ministers of all parties is to adhere to the normal rule of not commenting on security matters. That practice is upheld in "Erskine May", and I shall follow it.

In view of the increasing difficulties created by the judge's rulings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, will my right hon. Friend consider whether the time has come for the Government to impose a moratorium on all legal activities relevant to historical matters concerned with the late Sir Roger Hollis? Instead, will she consider asking the Security Commission to review any continuing security problems from that era and make recommendations to Parliament, first, on how best to preserve the duty of confidentiality among retired security officers who live overseas and, secondly, on how best to install some form of permanent oversight body which might stop this type of nonsense from ever happening again?

I think that the practice has been the right one. The Government are concerned with upholding the principle of confidentiality and the obligations of staff, without which there can be no effective security service. We are discussing the need to have a continuing, effective security service. Those who wish to continue to have an effective security service understand the need not to discuss these matters in the House of Commons. Other people have secret services. It is a difficult problem, but I believe that the path taken by previous Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries and, indeed, previous Foreign Secretaries, while they have been in office has been the correct one.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.

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

Did the Prime Minister discuss in 1980 or 1981 the likely contents of Peter Wright's book, or any allegations being made by him, with Lord Rothschild?

I have nothing further to add—[Interruption.]—to the replies which I have previously given. If the hon. Gentleman looks in "Erskine May", he will see that my reply is upheld there.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.

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

During her busy day, will the Prime Minister consider the £1 million war chest set up by Flexilink to seek to undermine investor confidence in the Channel tunnel? Does she agree that the £700 million worth of manufacturing equipment which will be needed for that project and which is capable of being supplied by areas of traditionally high employment—traditional heavy industry—is a far greater prize for the nation?

I believe that the Channel tunnel offers very exciting employment possibilities. It is a billion pound project which, if it goes ahead, will be financed totally by the private sector. It offers the prospect of many jobs and of better access to continental markets for many of our industries.

May I ask the Prime Minister a question that may unite the House? May I ask the Prime Minister whether she will look at the legislation with regard to attendance allowances and invalidity care allowances as it affects terminal cases? When it passed the legislation, the House did not intend the six-month rule to deny terminal patients their rights, and the rights of the carers and of the organisations that care for them. Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that, during her busy schedule today, she will have words with the appropriate Department to get that matter put right?

I cannot undertake to do what the hon. Gentleman asks me, to get the matter put right, because I am not quite certain what is the other side of the story. I know, as he knows, that our record on disabled—[Interruption.]—Yes. Our record of spending on benefits for the long-term sick—[Interruption.] Our record on spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled people is up by 55 per cent. in real terms. That is an excellent record of which we are proud, and obviously Opposition Members are trying to shout so that it is not heard where it should be. I shall, of course, put the specific point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me and some Labour Members in condemning the hijacking of some unemployment centres by Left-wing militants who have turned those centres into hotbeds of political campaigning? Will she undertake to investigate those matters and oust those red riff-raff so that the centres can be used for their proper purpose—to help the unemployed and their families?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is unfortunate that a project funded under the community programme should break clear and sensible rules under which it has accepted funding. I know that Manpower Services Commission officials are currently considering what further steps to take in that matter. I join my hon. Friend in his censure.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.

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

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to close the loopholes that allow unlimited supplies of firearms and ammunition to circulate in this country without restriction? Does she not realise that increasing penalties, as in the Criminal Justice Bill, which is to be debated today, are only part of the answer, and that her response to rising crime will never be adequate until she pays due regard to the causes of crime?

By the time one sorted out the causes of crime, one could sort out the fundamental nature of human nature itself. The view that we have taken is that it is the Government's duty to provide the extra resources. Consequently, we have provided the extra police and the extra equipment on a scale that has never been seen before. With regard to firearms, as the hon. Gentleman says, the Criminal Justice Bill contains provision to increase to life imprisonment the maximum sentence for carrying a firearm in the furtherance of crime.

During the course of her official duties, will my right hon. Friend consider the date for the next general election? In doing so, will she bear in mind that the former alliance Member of Parliament, Neville Sandelson, has said in The Sunday Times that in every constituency that Labour might conceivably win, alliance supporters should now attune themselves to voting Conservative?

The advice is excellent and I should like to endorse it.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.

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

Will the Prime Minister inform the House what authority the Attorney-General had to give confidential information from his Department to a Fleet street journalist, Mr. Chapman Pincher? Is she aware that if she fails to answer this question, as she has failed to answer the others, this House and the nation will consider that she has something to hide and that she is frightened?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that he can ask me any questions. I am constrained by a court case in which the Government are appearing—[Interruption.] He can ask me any questions and is not constrained, but he knows that I am constrained by the court case in Australia in which the Government are appearing. Therefore, I cannot go any further than I have gone. I notice that he reflects severely on the Attorney-General: a reflection which I totally and utterly condemn.

rose—

rose—

rose—

rose—

Order. I will take points of order if they relate directly to questions.

rose—

Order. I am on my feet. I will take points of order if they relate directly to Question Time. We have two statements: a statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Science and a Business statement. I will take points of order in their normal place after that time, unless they refer directly to questions today.

On a point of order arising out of questions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) asked the Prime Minister a direct question about the role of the Attorney-General in dealing with the Chapman Pincher memoirs—

Order. I say to the House that before we start continuing Question Time through points of order, the points made must be something on which I can personally rule.

The Prime Minister replied to my right hon. Friend's question by saying that according to "Erskine May" the question fell within a security classification and, therefore, she was entitled not to reply to it. There is an entire list of precedents, a file of precedents, on which such claims can be made according to "Erskine May". I would be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would help the House by checking the file and reporting back to us whether the matter comes under the classification of security, under which the Prime Minister is entitled not to answer.

rose—

Order. I do not need any help. The rules regarding what is admissible, as the Prime Minister mentioned at Question Time, are set out on pages 342–43 of "Erskine May". That is public knowledge and the entire House knows about it. The Prime Minister's answer on the indivisibility of Government is not a matter for me. It is not a matter of order for the Chair.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that a Minister is entitled at any time to refuse to answer any question?

On a point of order relating to Question Time today, yesterday and the day before, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] You asked for points of order relating to questions today, Mr. Speaker, but the matter also applies to questions yesterday and the day before. It has been alleged in some newspapers, and I am advised that it is correct, that matters raised in Question Time today, yesterday and the day before relate to matters happening in Australia at present which are sub judice in Australia. Those matters are being raised as a direct result of communications with the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and with officials in the Leader of the Opposition's office. These matters are sub judice in Australia. Will the matter be allowed to continue to such an extent that anything happening in Australia to which the United Kingdom Government are a party will be raised on the Floor of the House, where disreputable remarks are being made about people who cannot defend themselves?

I think that I dealt clearly with that question yesterday. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look carefully at Hansard and what I have said about the tendency in this place to name people who have no redress, under the cloak of parliamentary privilege. I am tied by the rules governing this House. I am not tied by any rules that govern any other Parliament.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With characteristic courtesy the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) said that he might raise the subject of Sir Arthur Franks. My question elicited a rather positive answer from the Attorney-General on the subject. I am exceedingly careful how I use the Order Paper—[Interruption.] I defy any hon. Member to say that I have abused the Order Paper in naming individuals. In view of the important answer given by the Attorney-General, I look to you to confirm that my question was legitimate. The Attorney-General would not have answered that he was considering the case unless there had been something to consider. May I have your confirmation that it was not an abuse of the Order Paper to name an individual, in view of the fact that it is an important matter? It appears that some people can brief authors but that others cannot.

Order. I do not think that that arose from Question Time today, but since the hon. Gentleman has managed to ask his point of order, I shall answer it. He tabled a question which was passed by the Table Office as being in order, so he was entirely correct.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your assurance that the rules of order apply to everybody equally? You may have noticed that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is able to indulge in a great deal of sedentary noise. Would you try to persuade him to let some others of us get in as well?

Order. The whole House knows that the rules of order apply to everyone equally.

rose—

rose—

rose—

Order. I will take Mr. Skinner first.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the comments that have been made during the past couple of days, and, more important, by you today about whether motions on the Order Paper are in order, may I remind you that some of us would like to see some stern action taken when Conservative Members attack people at GCHQ by calling them traitors—

Order. That does not arise from Question Time today.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that you told us yesterday that the whole question of early-day motions appearing on the Order Paper was to be considered by the Procedure Committee. Without suggesting for a moment that any hon. Member is out of order in the early-day motion that he or she has tabled, would it not bring the House into greater repute if, pending the deliberations of the Procedure Committee, we desisted from naming on the Order Paper individuals who cannot defend themselves?

We have a heavy day before us and I invite the whole House to look carefully at what I said yesterday. I shall repeat it again today. The tendency to name individuals under the cloak of privilege must be treated with the greatest caution. I am tied by the rules on early-day motions as they are at present. Yesterday I mentioned that the Procedure Committee is minded to look at the matter, and I believe that it should certainly do so.

Further to that point of order, and with a slightly different version of it, Mr. Speaker. I understand that it is in order for the Prime Minister to make a reply to the effect that the matter is one concerning security, and that can be made as a political statement even if, under the terms of "Erskine May", it is not covered. Will you confirm that it is open to the Opposition to check the validity of her answer by formally tabling the same question as a written question at the Table Office? If it is a security question, the Table Office will refuse to accept that question, but if it is not a security question, although it has been blocked as a supplementary question today, will the Table Office accept it as a written question?

Order. That is a hypothetical question. If a question is tabled, it will be screened as to whether there is a block upon it, in the usual way.

rose—

rose—

rose—

rose—

Order. As I mentioned yesterday, this tendency to pursue Question Time through points of order is a bad habit. I said yesterday, and the House agreed, that we should stop it, and I hope that we shall.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, you said that you were not prepared to take points of order today on what had happened the day before. You also said:

"I will take points of order only on matters that do not refer back to what happened yesterday."—[Official Report, 26 November 1986; Vol. 106, c. 271.]

It is a question of the context in which these things are done. If it is a legitimate matter, that is one thing, but if it appears to be what I can only describe as part of a general excuse to seek to get things raised, it is a different matter. This House would be in chaos if the Chair allowed points of order to arise on matters that had arisen several days in the past. That has always been the rule.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your ruling on a specific matter. Have not you and your predecessors ruled consistently that an answer given by a Minister is not a matter for you, and that Ministers, not the Chair, are responsible for the content of their answers? Therefore, is it not the case that the point raised by the shadow Leader of the House, who sought to raise a point of order arising out of the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, was no point of order because answers given from the ministerial Dispatch Box are not a matter for you?

Order. That is entirely the case, but the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that a great many points of order are spurious, as many have been today.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Reference has been made in a number of questions to the content of the Order Paper. You will have seen a number of motions in the names of Labour Members dealing with various security matters that seem to have attracted a great many names. When one puts in an early-day motion in these terms, in the names of many hon. Members, perhaps even Front Bench spokesmen, is it necessary for those people to have signed the paper, or is it sufficient for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to have a list of hon. Members who are prepared to help him in his muckraking efforts—

Order. I do not know about things like that. The hon. Gentleman well knows the rules regarding the tabling of questions.

You referred, Mr. Speaker, to "the tendency". Could you please explain to the House to which tendency you are referring?

Order. I think not the same one as the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Now we will have the statement.

rose—

rose—

Order. Points of order are taking up a great deal of time. I shall take these two points of order and then we must move on.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You ruled some days ago that the proceedings in South Africa—Australia—[Interruption.]

Order. Let me help the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Hickmet.

You ruled, Mr. Speaker, some days ago that the proceedings in Australia were not sub judice. However, would you rule on this point: in a case to which the British Government are a party overseas, is it in order for Members of this honourable House to cross-examine Front Bench spokesmen on behalf of counsel who act for parties against whom the British Government are appearing? I refer in particular to the cross-examination carried out by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon of the Prime Minister on behalf of counsel acting for Peter Wright in Australia.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, as I understand it. He knows that this matter, as I ruled previously, is not sub judice under our rules. It may be sub judice under the rules of the Australian Parliament, but it is not sub judice under ours.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are confronted now with this very vexed issue of names being named outside this House. You have said that this is something that the Select Committee on Procedure might be minded to look into. May we ask you, Sir, as the guardian of privilege in this House, to put it before the Select Committee? Could you say whether you would be minded to give evidence? If you did so, would that evidence be published?

Order. If I am invited by the Select Committee to give evidence, I shall certainly do so.

Would it be helpful at this stage—

No. We shall now take the statement of the Secretary of State for Education and Science.