To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will meet the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to discuss the latest implications of the Stalker/Sampson inquiry into allegations involving misconduct by the security forces.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received seeking publication in full of the Sampson report on the administration of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

My right hon. and learned Friend announced on Monday that the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) had with his agreement concluded that no further criminal proceedings should be brought in respect of the incidents in 1982 which led to the setting up of the Stalker/Sampson inquiry. The report of that inquiry, being that of a police investigation into possible criminal offences, will, in accordance with practice, not be published.

Obviously the Secretary of State's announcement that there will be a further statement will be welcomed, and hon. Members on both sides of the House will wait for it with some impatience, given the length of time that has passed. Does the Secretary of State accept that when John Stalker, as deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester, was taken off the case, it was widely rumoured that he had already recommended prosecution against some of the lower-serving ranks and that he intended to question senior RUC officers under caution? Because of that, and because it is important that the RUC should be respected throughout the community in Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State also accept that the Attorney-General's decision earlier this week not to prosecute has left the RUC in a very difficult position in that it will not have the confidence of the whole of the community in the north of Ireland?

I want to begin by apologising to the House for the length of my reply earlier. However, because of the great concern that exists over this matter, I though it proper not to duck the issue and to try to explain it as fully as I could.

Does the Secretary of State agree that after hundreds of years of British occupation of Ireland it is inevitable that the Irish people are deeply suspicious of British justice? Does he further agree that when Mr. Stalker was taken off the case there was no natural progression from Mr. Stalker to Mr. Sampson? Mr. Stalker was removed in the most curious circumstances, and we do not yet know all the details. The minority community and the Government of the Republic of Ireland are deeply concerned about this. Therefore, will he seek a judicial inquiry, under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921? I know that he said he will make another statement, but the fears and suspicions remain and they have been fuelled by the Attorney-General's statement on Monday.

I noticed during the Attorney-General's statement on Monday that hon. Members on both sides of the House paid tribute to the total integrity of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) whose decision was announced by the Attorney-General. I remind the House that the Director of Public Prosecutions, because he was not satisfied with the evidence, insisted upon the inquiry being set up in the first place. That point should be remembered. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that part of the Sampson report that I have seen which is within my responsibility incorporates Mr. Stalker's draft conclusions and Mr. Sampson's comments upon them. Therefore, in that respect, there is real continuity.

Are not the safety and continued effectiveness of members of the security forces and of the security services and those who help them an important part of the national interest that the Director of Public Prosecutions was bound to consider? Should not responsible Members of this House have a care for that? Is my right hon. Friend aware that we await his further statement with confidence and believe that those in charge of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be as concerned as anyone else to see that the disciplinary proceedings—if there are any—are carried out to the full to ensure that a proper outcome is reached?

I heard my hon. Friend commenting on that this morning. He was absolutely correct to say, as I said in my statement, that this is not the end of the matter. It is possible, as he said in his interview this morning, that disciplinary proceedings could have serious consequences for the individuals concerned.

Does the Secretary of State believe that the action of the Government of the Republic of Ireland in calling off a cross-border security meeting between the Garda Siochana Commissioner and the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was a vulgar threat, suggesting to the Government that if they did not toe the line there would be no support for cross-border co-operation?

No, Sir. We attach the greatest importance to cross-border security co-operation. Anyone who has heard today's news of what is clearly a very significant arms find on the shore of Donegal will realise the value that is increasingly being obtained from that close co-operation.

Is not one of the most unsatisfactory aspects the veil of secrecy that has been pulled across the proceedings? Does the Secretary of State not recognise that if confidence in the RUC is to be established among members of the minority community—many of whom ought to be encouraged to join and support the RUC— it will be necessary to publish the proceedings of the inquiry, at least to Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and to the Intergovernmental Conference? Will he consider that? Will he also say what lessons have been learnt for the future, and what changes will be made to ensure that this does not happen again?

I have referred to procedures, responsibilities and control within the RUC. It is important to remember that the incidents that gave rise to the present concern took place six years ago, and that a number of changes were made soon after that by the Chief Constable in recognition of some of the points of concern. I have no doubt that that is one of the reasons for the increased confidence in the RUC, which has followed the lessons learnt from some of the most unfortunate aspects of those regrettable incidents.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is of paramount importance that this whole sorry affair should not stand in the way of cross-border security, particularly cross-border co-operation as a generality? Is it not important that the inquiries are undertaken swiftly and that there is a clear conclusion, so that the public can have confidence in the RUC again?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of confidence in the RUC, and I bitterly regret that the events of so many years ago — and the controversy over them — have the potential to damage some of that confidence. That, however, is the reality. One of the problems that we face in fighting vicious terrorists is that issues of national security and the protection of individuals must always be in our minds. That was mentioned by the Attorney-General, who referred to the public interest, and it applies particularly to issues of national security. But we are trying to recognise the lessons that can be learnt.

Does the Secretary of State accept that in most societies the national interest is best served by unequivocal and impartial implementation of the rule of law? Is it not best served by the community as a whole having confidence in both the police services and the administration of justice? Will he tell us what contribution to that national interest was made by the Attorney-General's statement this week? There is evidence of a clear attempt to pervert the course of justice—not in a minor case of theft, but in cases involving the deaths of five people. Does the Secretary of State recall the Prime Minister's statement some time ago that there should be no hiding place anywhere in these islands for anyone who commits a crime? Does he accept that the implication of the Attorney-General's statement is that there is a hiding place for selected people who, in spite of the fact that the incidents happened five or six years ago, are still either in the security forces or the security services?

First, I know that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that too many people comment on this and blithely ignore the fact that four people have already faced a charge of murder in a court of law. Furthermore, it is simply unacceptable to imply that there has been any attempt to cover up, when my right hon. and learned Friend made it absolutely clear that there is evidence, and when I have made it clear to the House that that evidence will not be suppressed. It will be made available and taken into account in the context of disciplinary proceedings. I made the clearest statement that this is not, therefore, a cover-up to seek to suppress the fact that there is evidence and that that evidence will have to be considered. My right hon. and learned Friend informed the House that in the national interest and in the interests of national security it is not proper for there to be criminal proceedings in these respects.

What disciplinary action is to be taken against those secret service agents who were up to their necks in this matter, who may well have initiated all the actions and whose presence is confirmed by reference to the national interest?

The hon. Gentleman will know that it is not for me to comment on the points that he has raised.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in today's edition of The Guardian that Mr. Alan Dukes, the Irish Opposition Leader, says that the British Government gave an assurance to Dublin in 1986 that charges would probably be made against senior RUC officers following the Sampson-Stalker inquiry? Will my right hon. Friend comment on that statement and say whether there is any accuracy in it?

If by "charges" my hon. Friend means that prosecutions will be brought, that is a matter not for Ministers but for the Director of Public Prosecutions in conjunction with the Attorney-General.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the disciplinary proceedings will be in camera, and not in public, so we shall still not know even part of the truth? Will he also confirm that when he was consulted by the Attorney-General he advised that, on the grounds of public interest and national security, there should not be any prosecutions based on the Stalker-Sampson report, and that that advice was based on the knowledge that, if prosecuted, the officers named in The Times, Chief Superintendent Andy Anderson and Chief Inspector Ronnie Flanagan, had let it be known that they would reveal in the witness box the whole background to the shoot-to-kill allegations and the attempted cover-up, implicating senior officers and others who either formulated the policy or had knowledge of it?

I understand that it is not the practice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to comment on whom he consults when determining his assessment of the public interest or national security. Obviously, therefore, it is not proper for me to comment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next plans to meet Ministers from the Republic of Ireland for discussions under the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

I hope to do so very shortly.

First, I thank the Secretary of State, his Parliamentary Private Secretary and the Northern Ireland Office for arranging the visit to Northern Ireland for those hon. Members who had no previous experience of Northern Ireland. I hope that I speak on behalf of those hon. Members of all parties who went on the visit in hoping that that educational experience can be extended so that we can speak from first-hand knowledge rather than from reflex.

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. I welcome those hon. Members who may not be familiar with Northern Ireland but who are willing to acquaint themselves more clearly with the situation there. I think that I speak for every hon. Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency when I say how much we welcome the interest of other hon. Members in such matters. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking the time.

Will my right hon. Friend point out to the Irish authorities that if they continue to boycott ministerial meetings under the Anglo-Irish Agreement following the Attorney-General's statement, they could find that that boycott is a two-edged sword? If such meetings resume, will my right hon. Friend make it clear to his Southern Irish counterparts that the defeat of the IRA is the first priority and that any political tinkering or change can come only after the campaign against the terrorists has been won?

There is no question of a boycott. In fact, we have arranged an extra, special meeting and, as I said in my original answer, we hope that it will be held shortly. I certainly look forward to close and continuing co-operation. Furthermore, I would not wish to strike such a note today, when we have heard welcome news of a very substantial arms find on the shore of Donegal. We pay tribute to the Garda's work in that respect. I know that every law-abiding person in Northern Ireland will welcome the news.

At the next meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference, will the Secretary of State explain to the representatives of the Irish Government how the Attorney-General's decision is compatible with articles 7 and 8 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which the British Government signed? In more immediate terms, what advice has the right hon. Gentleman to offer to all those young people — both Catholic and Protestant — who, through force of circumstance in their own communities, are sitting in gaol? How does he intend to persuade them to have confidence, not just in the police, but in the whole process of justice?

I should like to think that the hon. Gentleman recognises the progress that has been made in that respect. I have been the first to say that the events of 1982 and the problems that they have posed have undoubtedly cast a shadow over recent attitudes. These are very difficult issues indeed.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the extradition issue has now been sorted out? If not, will he pursue the issue again when he next meets Irish Ministers so that we can all be sure that there will be no haven for terrorists as a result of technical complications in extradition matters in the Irish Republic?

We are working very closely indeed with the Irish Government on these matters, and we have made progress. No two cases are ever quite the same and different issues arise from them, but I hope that there will be a continuing improvement in these matters, to which we attach the greatest importance.

May I make it clear that no one denies the integrity of the Director of Public Prosecutions? However, we say that his decision was based upon evidence, given to him by the Attorney-General, from which he could reach no other conclusion. It is that evidence that we seek to examine. Will the Secretary of State now confirm that what he said in reply to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) represented a denial of what Mr. Dukes stated—

Order. The question is about the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

That is right, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Dukes said that at the meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on 8 December 1986 the right hon. Gentleman did not say, or give the impression, to Mr. Peter Barry or to Mr. Dukes that charges would be preferred against senior officers of the RUC following the receipt of the Stalker inquiry and that, on that basis, those Ministers did not press for the matter to be published. Will the Secretary of State also tell the House, on this, the 300th anniversary of the arrival of William of Orange and the declaration of rights, why the Government are breaking the concordat between Parliament and the Crown by suspending and dispensing with the law?

I shall not respond to the last part of the question, which took the hon. Gentleman into confused waters. As to the first part of his question about would-be prosecutions, which was slightly different in phraseology from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), he knows perfectly well that that is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Irish Foreign Minister and the Irish Minister for Justice, will he comment on, or put forward views and proposals about, the administration of justice in the Irish Republic?

We have no present proposals to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to increase funding for the purposes of improving health and the personal social services in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

The public expenditure White Paper published last week provided details of the planned increase in expenditure on the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland over the next three financial years. In 1988–89 expenditure will rise to £845 million in total.

Does the Minister agree that his Department's recent announcement about the level of health expenditure in Northern Ireland has been widely condemned by those concerned with health care in the Province? Does he accept the calculation of the Province's health boards, which show that they are facing a £20 million shortfall in health expenditure for next year? Will he accept that the Department's announcement completely fails to meet the crisis in health care in Northern Ireland?

No, Sir, I will not accept that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that in Northern Ireland we spend 23 per cent, more per year on the Health Service than we do in other regions of the United Kingdom. I understand the difficulties with regard to expenditure by the health boards this year, but I should point out that our record on health expenditure in Northern Ireland is second to none. As a percentage of GDP we spend 12·4 per cent., which is almost twice as much as West Germany.

Despite what the Minister has just said, it has been reported that health authorities throughout Northern Ireland have warned him that a crisis will develop in the Health Service unless more money is made available. Will he reconsider this matter and provide sufficient money? If not, hospital wards will have to close and the people of Northern Ireland will suffer further.

I understand that there are problems with the health boards this year, but I must refer to the high levels of expenditure in the Province. There will be a 5·3 per cent, increase in expenditure this year. Many other countries in Europe are having to cut back on health expenditure.

I acknowledge the amount of expenditure on health care, but does the Minister recognise the greater need of Northern Ireland and that, for cardiac surgery and ophthalmology, there are three times as many people on the waiting list as there were in 1982? A slight injection of funds would be helpful. Will he acknowledge that in the Eastern Health and Social Services Board there will be a shortfall of £8 million and that, as a result, with regard to cardiac care, people will be dying?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the increased level of need in Northern Ireland, which is why we spend 23 per cent. more. As to the particulars that the hon. Gentleman referred to, I shall have an opportunity to discuss with the chairman and general manager of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board its programme for next year, which is a matter for them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however generous we would like the British taxpayer to be to deserving cases in Northern Ireland, we must continually bear in mind that its Health Service is almost completely funded by mainland money? Such assistance should not be too disproportionate to other similar and parallel benefits in other parts of the United Kingdom.

The Government accept that there is an additional need for health care in Northern Ireland, which is why we provide funds for it and will continue to do so at a high level.

Is the Minister aware that he sounds very much like the Prime Minister in his recitation of statistics? Does he realise that his position is equally as incongruous as that of the Prime Minister, in that the statistics that he relates bear little relation to the needs and requirements of the Health Service and social services in the Province? Since the Treasury is awash with money, will he join us in urging the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase funding for the Health Service in the Province?

That is the first time that I have ever been compared to the Prime Minister, and I am grateful to the hon. Member. I am sure he is aware that the Treasury in Northern Ireland is not awash with money. We have had a very difficult time this year and have made all the money that we can available to the Health Service. We have a first-rate Health Service in Northern Ireland and will do everything that we can to maintain it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to increase cross-community contacts between children at school in Northern Ireland.

I introduced a new cross-community contact scheme in September last year which provides additional annual resources of £200,000 to assist schools, colleges, youth groups and reconciliation bodies in the organisation of new cross-community activities for young people under 19. So far 120 applications have been received, of which 52 are from the schools sector, involving a total of 131 different schools.

While I warmly welcome this initiative, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that if we can get the two communities to mix when they are youngsters there is a chance that they might mix when they are adults and thus stop the tearing and ripping at each other that has been taking place for centuries?

I agree with what my hon. Friend says and I am heartened by my belief that an increasing number of people in the Province feel similarly.

Is the Minister aware that encouraging the setting up of so-called integrated schools would only contribute to the breaking down and closing of schools within the maintained and controlled sectors? Is he further aware that such action would not result in the cross-community relations that he would wish to see achieved and that pupils who would be attracted towards integrated education will integrate themselves naturally in their daily lives? Does the Minister not feel that it would be better to deploy existing education resources for the encouragement of cross-community activities in existing schools where there is already a co-operative effort towards that end?

The hon. Gentleman will know that I have done precisely what he urged in the last part of his question and have devoted increased effort and resources to trying to improve cross-community contacts in existing schools. He will also know that I and my predecessors have always said that we would seek to educate the children of Northern Ireland according to the wishes of their parents, and there are many parents — an increasing number, I believe—who would like to see their children educated in circumstances that are different from the traditional ones that have pertained in Northern Ireland for the past 65 years.

The Education Reform Bill is, of course, going through the House at the present time. Could my hon. Friend give some indication of the extent to which, in relation to the curriculum which children in Northern Ireland are experiencing, there is a deliberate attempt to ensure that they are taught on a non-sectarian basis? Surely that would be a great help for the future.

I hope and expect to be issuing a consultation paper on education reform in Northern Ireland in the reasonably near future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what economic initiatives the Government plan to boost employment in Northern Ireland.

In the context of the Pathfinder programme which I introduced last year I set up six task forces to identify strengths and weaknesses in the Northern Ireland economy and to promote constructive change. This has been enthusiastically received. Regional conferences have been held throughout the Province, leading to keen discussion. This takes place against a background of falling unemployment.

Can the Minister explain an aspect of Government policy that puzzles a lot of us? It is that in Northern Ireland public investment is considered to be a sensible way of boosting the economy and creating jobs, but in the rest of the United Kingdom it is regarded as Keynsian nonsense and a waste of money.

No. I gather that the hon. Gentleman was recently in the Province and I hope that he enjoyed his visit. I must put him right on the tone of his question. The Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit will strengthen enterprise in Northern Ireland and will promote investment by the private sector. I am delighted to say that, for the last four years, the Industrial Development Board alone has promoted investment by the private sector of £1 billion in industry and commerce.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best boosts to jobs and the economy of Northern Ireland would be the removal of the iniquities of the protection racket, particularly in the construction industry? Will he bring forward at an early stage fiscal measures to remove those iniquities?

Although law and order issues are not directly within my field of responsibility, I can confirm that vigorous steps are being taken to counter this threat.

Will the Minister, in his conversations with his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, ask the Minister responsible for health in Northern Ireland to ensure that when the Antrim area hospital is built—

Order. The question is about employment.

—as much as work as possible is given to competent local contractors?

No doubt the Minister with responsibility for health matters heard the hon. Gentleman.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to boost employment in the Province would be to make some progress on the political front? Do he and his right hon. Friend agree that the time has now come to implement the parliamentary tier proposals contained in the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Given the events of the past few days, that would at least provide an opportunity for those of differing and sometimes opposing views to come face to face to discuss their differences and to make some positive moves forward.

The Government have always taken the view that political progress on security and progress on the economy are interlinked. In matters regarding the economy, for which I am responsible, the rate at which unemployment is diminishing now appears to be accelerating. A 1,000 a month reduction in the level of unemployment in the past six months has now accelerated to a rate of 1,400 per month in the past three months. We find this very promising.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many (a) male and (b) female prisoners are in residence in Maghaberry prison; what is the total number of available places; and when full occupancy will be achieved.

The female prison at Maghaberry has 56 cells and was designed to accommodate all the female prisoners in Northern Ireland.

Is the Minister aware that some years have elapsed since Maghaberry prison was supposed to come into service? I would like to make the Minister aware of the grave suspicion that, during the construction of that prison, Republican elements employed there were guilty of certain acts, as a consequence of which the prison is not being opened when it should be. In view of the fact that the Crumlin road prison is grossly overcrowded, as I know from my own experience, will the Minister tell the House whether he will consider moving some prisoners from Crumlin road to Maghaberry if and when that prison is ever commissioned?

The main reason for the delay in the opening of the new Maghaberry prison was the need to carry out major redesign work following security experience of similarly designed prisons elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As to the hon. Gentleman's comment about overcrowding at Belfast prison, I am glad to be able to tell him that the number of prisoners there yesterday was only 14 above the authorised capacity of 500.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received seeking the introduction of the community charge in Northern Ireland.

The representations that my right hon. Friend has received from members of the public currently amount to one letter.

Why are the inestimable benefits of the community charge to be conferred upon the people of Tonbridge and Mailing, and even Eastbourne, but withheld from the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his enthusiastic support for the community charge, which is certainly shared in Tonbridge and Mailing and Eastbourne. However, my hon. Friend is well aware that the structure of local government and the financial arrangements for local government in the Province are very different from the rest of Great Britain. My hon. Friend will be aware from my original answer regarding the community charge that we believe that it is right to monitor the progress in the Province.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is now satisfied with progress in the fight against terrorism.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in 1987.

Since I last answered questions in the House on 10 December, five civilians, two members of the UDR and one RUC officer have died as a result of the security situation in the Province. The period has been marked by much effective work by the security forces, but the threat remains high. On 21 January I announced new arrangements for the deployment of security forces in border areas.

As the IRA has now been proven, as a result of the find in County Donegal today, to have been running in weapons by the shipload, and since there is evidence in Northern Ireland that Protestant paramilitaries are moving weapons by the carload, is it not pathetic for the Minister to come to the House and read off such a litany? When will he be satisfied with progress and when will he eliminate terrorism? Those are the questions that we want answered.

I find that a disappointing supplementary question, especially from the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) who, above all, should welcome the fact that such a substantial quantity of arms has been found in Donegal and the fact that those arms will now not be used, possibly against his constituents. The fact that the hon. Gentleman knows about the shipments for the Loyalists is precisely because the RUC achieved the recapture of those weapons.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that security affects both sides of the border? What cooperation has he had on security matters as a result of discussions with the Government of the Irish Republic lately?

Such co-operation is ongoing and extremely close. The evidence of today is further proof of its benefit.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that our economic prospects are better now than at any time during the — [Interruption.] That improvement applies equally to the north-west as to the south-east. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is well over £100 million worth of new development currently under way in Bolton town centre? That is the sort of news that we want from the north of England, rather than the doom and gloom from the Labour Benches, which does so much to reinforce outdated prejudices and deter new investment.

I agree with my hon. Friend. Enterprise is thriving and unemployment is falling in all parts of the country. I congratulate Bolton on its attitude. It is welcoming private enterprise, and the £100 million is an extremely large investment on any count. The real divide is between those cities that welcome private sector enterprise and those which would rather discourage it and have higher unemployment.

Does the Prime Minister recall saying, just five weeks ago, on 21 December, that charges for patients in National Health Service hospitals

"could not possibly come in during the lifetime of this Parliament because I remember very vividly during the election I confirmed we would rule it out. We have introduced extra charges which we think people can afford but we are not talking about extra charges beyond those which we have introduced."

Yes, of course. I made that clear when I was asked a similar question in the House but a short time ago.

Is the Prime Minister saying — it is important that she make a formal announcement about this — that there is no possibility in this Parliament of direct or indirect charges for visits to the doctor, for hospital visits, for family planning services or anything else? If she is—and it is what she said in the election— will she be good enough to make a formal announcement, instead of letting it seep out through Bernard Ingham?

I have been asked this question in this House about board and lodging charges, and I have answered it in this House. The statements made during the general election stand. I have said so before, and I say so again. They stand for the lifetime of this Parliament. By the time the next Parliament comes we shall have completed the internal review. We shall then make our promises, which will stand for the following Parliament.

To ask the Prime Minister what steps she is taking to decentralise the work of government.

Over 5,500 Civil Service posts have already been transferred from London since 1979 under the Government's dispersal programme, and a similar number of posts have been dispersed on the initiative of individual Departments.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many private companies previously based in London and the south-east have now discovered the advantages of lower-cost enterprise and the higher quality of life that the north can offer? Bearing in mind the very high cost of London weighting allowance and commuter subsidies, would it not make more sense, where it is cost-effective to do so, to transfer more administrative and clerical work from Whitehall to the provinces?

I have indicated some of the posts that have gone and some that separate Departments are also considering. There are nearly 34,000 civil servants working in the northern region. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of locating Civil Service jobs outside London and the south-east where possible, because the costs are very high there. This is resulting in separate Departments looking at their plans. By the end of this year, the DHSS will have created a further 500 jobs at its Newcastle central office.

The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) undertook some time ago to persuade the Prime Minister to move a substantial number of defence jobs from the south to the north. Why has he been so unsuccessful?

I have said that there are nearly 34,000 civil servants working in the northern region, and in fact four out of five civil servants work outside Greater London. There are already a very considerable number of jobs in the northern region, and, as I have said, there will be more DHSS jobs by the end of this year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is thoroughly refreshing to have a closed question of this kind at this time?

That is a matter for the House. I try to answer the questions that are put down.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

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

I have been listening with growing astonishment to the right hon. Lady's claims about decentralisation, since only yesterday she intervened to take direct control over education in Paisley. Are not the regulations she announced yesterday monstrous, arbitrary and possibly illegal? Does she realise that her intervention in favour of one school out of six is an attempt to condemn the other five good schools to closure? Will she not follow the advice given by every commentator and every newspaper in Scotland, led by the Glasgow Herald, which used the headline:

"Government sledgehammer"?

"Yesterday was a dismal day for what still remains of local democracy."

Extensive representations were made to keep in existence a very good school, very popular with parents. What the hon. Gentleman cannot stand is that that school gives great opportunity. Parents wanted it to be kept in existence. It is a very popular decision, which will bring opportunity to many pupils. The hon. Gentleman speaks about legislation. One can lay down regulations only under existing legislation.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the strike proposed for next week by certain nursing unions can only hurt patients? Will she therefore condemn the action and invite the Leader of the Opposition to do the same?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. Friend. Strike action in the Health Service harms the patient and puts heavier burdens on those with higher professional standards who refuse to strike. I condemn such action. I had hoped that it might be condemned by all parts of the House. At any rate, it is condemned by those who care about the Health Service.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

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

How does the Prime Minister justify her previous remarks? Why cannot she defend the nurses who are taking action in defence of the National Health Service as vigorously as she defended the workers in Solidarity against the dictatorial rule of General Jaruzelski?

Harming patients is taking action against the National Health Service.

Does my right hon. Friend share my deep disquiet at the disclosure in the House of individual medical histories? Does the unethical practice adopted by right hon. and hon. Opposition Members achieve anything, save adding to the distress of the parents concerned?

I am not aware of a particular case. I would have thought that the general proposition put by my hon. Friend is correct.

Will the Prime Minister recognise that, following—

It is Vatman.

Hon. Members must not interrupt in that way.

Following her unsuccessful attempt to divide the nurses' unions, will the Prime Minister recognise that the one thing that she could do to restore morale in the National Health Service would be to state unequivocally that the nurses' pay award will be funded in full, without cuts in the budgets of health authorities?

We had that identical question either last Question Time or the time before. Identical questions get identical answers. As Government we shall deal with the proposals from the review body in the way in which we have dealt with them before. When we know what the proposals are we shall decide precisely how they are to be funded.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that our nation led the world in the exploration of land, sea and air, bringing great commercial, political and cultural advantage to our country? Does she believe that our national interest is greatly served by leading in the exploration of the new domain of space? If so, will she please give due weight to Lord Shackleton's report and give a clear indication to the House of precisely what is our national space strategy?

Money spent on research in space has be weighed against the other competing demands for research money. That is what we are doing. We are keeping, of course, the full subscription to the mandatory programme of the European Space Agency. Some of the other programmes are optional. I understand that ESA itself is reviewing some of its programmes.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

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

Will the Prime Minister try to find time today to discuss with the Government Chief Whip arid her ministerial colleagues, the hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Lee) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) the outcome of a meeting that they attended with me earlier this month with Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale district health authority, when that authority listed a contingency plan for cuts within the Health Service which it said would affect patient care and levels of service within the area if nurses' pay is underfunded next year? Does she recognise that Sir John Page, of the regional health authority, said this week that the health authority, which has now withdrawn that ploy, must submit another? Does she accept that the cuts are already at an unacceptable level? Will she make additional funds available now?

I took the precaution of inquiring about the position of Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority. According to our records, the number of in-patients is up by 7·5 per cent.—

Oh, come on.

I am coming on. Day cases have gone up by 80 per cent., capital building completed has cost £6 million — the phase 3 development of Burnley general hospital. A pharmacy is under construction at a cost of £1·9 million. In the pipeline, it is planned to spend £5·9 million on Pendle community hospital. Waiting lists are down by 30 per cent, since 1983. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to say thank you.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that February's edition of the authorative motoring magazine Car has tested 12 cars on a price-quality audit? No. 10 was a Mercedes-Benz, No. 9 was a Citroen, No. 8 was a Toyota, No. 3 was an Audi, No 2 was a British-built Ford Fiesta, and the Birmingham-built Metro was at the top of the list? Is that not further evidence that the car manufacturers in the midlands have Vorsprung the world?

Yes. That points to the success of Birmingham and the west midlands as one of the premier car-producing areas in Europe. I congratulate them and wish them well. The west midlands is doing extremely well and the economic forecast is good.