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

The latest figures, released today, show that at 8 January 1987 there were 131,205 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland.

The Minister should have gone on to say that that represents 19·3 per cent. of the working population, but is not the real rate more than 24 per cent. when the black hole of the Department's 19 statistical fiddles adds 16,000 uncounted people in Northern Ireland? How can greater unity among working people be brought about in conditions of mass unemployment and the attendant poverty that it brings, in which sectarianism—whether of the orange or the green variety—finds a ready breeding ground?

I deny what the hon. Gentleman has said. The Government have done a great deal to promote training and employment in Northern Ireland, which the Labour Government's mismanagement prevented that Administration from carrying out. Yesterday, for example, I announced a new package of employment measures. I am extending the restart programme to those who are unemployed for six months. The youth training programme will now guarantee a one-year training place to 17-year-olds as well as to 16-year-olds, so no person under the age of 18 need remain on the unemployment register. Moreover, the enterprise allowance scheme will be increased by 10 per cent. to offer a further 250 places, and a pilot scheme is being introduced to offer unemployed people in the 18 to 25 age range training places with employers' leading to a recognised qualification.

I congratulate the Government on what they have achieved and are seeking to achieve, but how can anyone have confidence in the employment or unemployment figures for Northern Ireland in view of yesterday's revelations by Mr. Justice Nicholson about a massive employment swindle in the building industry involving millions of pounds and apparently financing terrorist organisations? Will my hon. Friend ensure that Mr. Justice Nicholson's comments are followed up and the swindle brought to a complete halt?

Although it does not directly follow from the question, I can confirm that yesterday's convictions were the latest in a series of successful investigations into tax exemption frauds by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The Government are vigorously pursuing a policy of cracking down on such corruption.

Is the Minister aware that the unemployment level of 48 per cent. in Strabane in my constituency is the highest not just in Britain and Northern Ireland but in the European Community? Why is there no enterprise zone in that area, given that enterprise zones are supposed to be located in areas of high unemployment to help them tackle those problems?

There is a limit to the number of enterprise zones that can helpfully be created in any one area, but I undertake to look at the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

As a former commercial director of a company in Northern Ireland, and having been responsible for placing millions of pounds worth of work in Northern Ireland, is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has shown no such initiatives in relation to unemployment in Northern Ireland?

I hear what my hon. Friend says. We are determined to tackle the problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland by promoting prosperity, which will lead to greater employment.

Unlike the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East regularly appears at Question Time and has a productive input into our proceedings in the House—[Interruption.]

Order. I had hoped that we might get off to a peaceful start today.

I am anxious to lend a hand to any colleague on this side of the House in the face of attacks by Conservative Members. The Minister has given the House good and bad news. The bad news is that unemployment is now 131,205. The good news, which we welcome, is the series of initiatives being introduced in Northern Ireland. Is the Minister aware that the figure of 131,205 people unemployed is greater than the total of 97,000 people employed in the manufacturing sector? More people are on the dole than are working and creating wealth in Northern Ireland. Is that due to Thatcherism, monetarism, plain incompetence, or all three?

Recent comments about the decline of the manufacturing sector in Northern Ireland have an element of truth in them, as they do throughout the industralised world. There is less employment in many areas in the manufacturing sector, but the line between manufacturing and service industries is now less clear than it was. Strong, lively industrial companies are prospering in Northern Ireland and it is a mistake to sell them down the river.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy on the expansion of forestry in Northern Ireland.

Our forestry policy is to promote the establishment of state and privately owned forests on land for which forestry is the most appropriate long-term use.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply, but is he aware that a recent survey shows that Ulster is climatically better favoured than any other part of the United Kingdom for the growing of forestry products? As there is a high rate of unemployment in the Province and a surplus of milk and beef products. will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will encourage forestry as much as possible in Northern Ireland?

My hon. Friend makes some helpful points. We do, indeed, encourage forestry. Expansion of forestry within the state sector depends on the availability of suitable land and public finance, while in the private sector grant schemes similar to those in Great Britain encourage the planting of woodlands.

I agree with the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). Is the Minister aware that many experts believe that the counties of Tyrone and Fermanagh are the most ideal locations in western Europe in terms of climate and soil for the fast-growing willow tree, a source of ethanol, which separates lead from petrol? Does he agree that a major effort towards that alternative use of land by small farmers could transform the economy of the area, and will he support my request to the European Commission for a feasibility study?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will pursue his campaign in his own constructive way. I repeat that the Government's policy is to encourage forestry. We are considering various areas and other schemes. There has been some success in privatising tree-felling, and we can claim some credit for that.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what talks he has had with the leaders of the Official Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party on the status of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received from political parties in Northern Ireland regarding the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and what response he has made.

I have not had any talks with the leaders of the Official Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party on the status of the agreement. However, I am aware of their concerns and remain ready to discuss those with them at any time. I regularly discuss issues related to the agreement at the request of leaders of the Social Democratic and Labour party and the alliance party.

Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the leaders of the Unionist parties that whatever the outcome of the impending Irish elections he will proceed with the repeal of the Flags and Emblems Act? Does he agree that the Unionist leaders are doing a disservice to the Unionist community in the North and that they have nothing to gain by their policy of non-co-operation or by awaiting the outcome of the next election in this country?

I certainly endorse the hon. Gentleman's latter remarks. The recent poll showed that, far from being any advantage to the interests of the Union, the antics of the Unionist parties have damaged the cause that they seek to espouse, for which I have made clear my support. We issued a consultation document on the flags and emblems issue in a draft public order order and we are considering the responses to that. We hope to lay an order before the House shortly, when the House will see the decisions that we have reached.

To avoid any misunderstandings, will my right hon. Friend stress to Unionist leaders that any possible renegotiation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement by an incoming Haughey Government will achieve as much as Harold Wilson's renegotiations of the terms of entry into the Common Market—in other words, not a row of beans?

We have made it clear that we stand by the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I shall not go further than that because I am aware that there is an electoral contest elsewhere and anything that I say can be taken down and used in evidence against me.

If and when the Secretary of State meets leaders of Ulster unionism, will he bear in mind that the only real conclusion from the petition that they are today presenting at Buckingham palace is that three quarters of the population of Northern Ireland did not sign it? Will he also bear in mind that when those leaders presume to speak on behalf of the people in the north of Ireland they speak only on behalf of one quarter of the population?

To go for greater statistical accuracy, I think that about one third of the electorate signed the petition.

Two out of three did not.

I am sure that the House will appreciate that revelation. The blinding mathematical insight that if one third signed the petition, two thirds did not, can be accepted by all without dispute, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.

Does my right hon. Friend think that when the Taoiseach said recently that

"the agreement is already making Unionists think in ways in which they had never thought before",

I understand that the petition has been delivered to Buckingham palace today. It will be for Her Majesty to decide whether, in accordance with normal constitutional practice, it should be referred to me as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In the meantime, it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House his view of the importance that Unionist leaders in the north of Ireland attach to the erroneous impression that if there were a balanced Parliament after the general election any of the parties would renegotiate the Anglo-Irish Agreement? How much importance does he attach to Mr. Haughey's recent comment that he would be prepared to renegotiate article 1?

On the latter point, I do not wish to say more than I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). I made it clear that we stand by the Anglo-Irish Agreement and we would look to continue to operate it whoever forms a Government in the Republic. If there were to he any change, that would be for others, not the Government. We have made it clear that we stand absolutely by the agreement.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of the 1979 Conservative manifesto, which said that in the absence of devolved government we would seek to set up a regional council or councils with widely devolved powers? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has not excluded from his consideration a return to the policy upon which he and I fought the 1979 election?

The world has moved on from that position. What I would make clear—obviously, this was the first ambition of my right hon. Friend, one of my predecessors as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who did not feel able to proceed further in that direction-is that I welcome from whatever quarter, and certainly and obviously expect from my hon. Friend, constructive suggestions of a way forward that can actually offer some hope, and it is interesting to note that, in contrast with certain of the political leaders, there are others within the the Province who are now turning their minds to what the sensible way forward would be. There have to be sensible discussions. I made absolutely clear on behalf of the Government that the sooner that those can start, the better.

Despite the condition that the Ulster Defence Association appears to have attached to its recent proposals that the agreement be suspended—the right hon. Gentleman has rightly assured the House that that is out of the question— will the Secretary of State nevertheless bear in mind the suggestion of the alliance party leader in Northern Ireland that a round table conference of all parties should be pursued as soon as the present impasse ceases? Will the right hon. Gentleman watch for such an opportunity?

I do not want to get hooked on any particular formula or format, but it is sensible that discussions should take place. There is no point in waiting. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) made that clear. It is desirable that we should proceed to discussions. I am conscious that the organisation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, among others, whatever their background, is trying to address, in one respect, the future organisation in the Province.

Is not the agreement completely one-sided and biased against the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland? Was not an important quid pro quo for the agreement the undertaking that the Irish Republic would join the convention for the suppression of terrorism? Does my right hon. Friend agree that after 15 months nothing has been (lone that we have seen the demise of another Government and that the convention still has not been ratified? Why does my right hon. Friend allow the breaking of that promise?

My hon. Friend is entirely incorrect. The convention has not only been ratified but it has been carried through both Houses of the Irish Parliament, so his allegation is unfair. I know that my hon. Friend wants to see improvement, as everyone does, but why does he not come off the debating points and look at the real issue? We are now getting a degree of co-operation on extradition which was entirely missing a while back. I hope that my hon. Friend will look fairly at these issues and not make incorrect claims but recognise that there has been genuine improvement.

Will the Secretary of State try to persuade the Unionist leaders that even if a referendum were held it would, at most, only tell us what we already know—that is, which side is in the majority? Democracy is about finding ways in which majorities and minorities can live together, discuss their differences and build on what they have in common. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Unionist leaders that that would be a more attractive approach if they want a better press in England?

I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments. Democracy is not about the rule of the majority. It is about the position of and proper respect for the interests of the minority. I shall not comment further, because I do not wish to pre-empt Her Majesty's decision on the treatment of the referendum question, but the Government's general attitude to the principle of referendum is no secret.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding has been made available by the Department of Economic Development in relation to ACE schemes.

The ACE scheme has proved very popular since it was introduced by the present Government in 1981 with a budget of £1·67 million providing 430 ACE jobs. Since then, funding has been substantially increased. This year's budget was £24·24 million and I am seeking further funds to bring the estimated average number of ACE jobs provided throughout the year to 6,150.

May I ask the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State most sincerely to review the decision to sack the six ACE workers at St. Matthews community centre on unspecified security grounds? The workers concerned consider this to be a smear on their character and the work that they have been doing in providing an advice centre and an Irish language nursery. Promotion of the Irish language is supposed to be part of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Those workers have been told that if they move to other premises they may be able to continue their work, but there are no other premises. Will the Minister agree to meet their trade union to reach a reasonable settlement, and will the Government stop smearing those workers and the work that they have been doing for so long?

Government assistance has been withdrawn from the St. Matthews tenants association under the terms of the policy outlined in the parliamentary statement on 25 June 1985 by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that when Government funding is withdrawn, funding from other sources also dries up and the future employment of those involved is prejudiced? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that these are draconian consequences for the organisers of the scheme, who have not even been informed of the allegations against them? Is he aware of press comments right across the political spectrum describing it as farcical to suggest that a Gaelic-speaking nursery school could pose a threat to law and order?

The statement to which I referred is a careful and comprehensive one which covers a delicate area. It would not be right for me to add or to detract from it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish language school in west Belfast has the full recognition of the Department of Education and Science and that the function of the Irish language nursery school in the Short Strand area is to prepare children to attend that school? Does he appreciate that that nursery school education is an essential part of the educational process of children going on to attend the Irish language school in west Belfast? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore reconsider the Government's decision?

I ask the hon. Gentleman to read again and consider the statement to which I have referred.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the prison population of Northern Ireland; if he will express this figure as a percentage of the civilian population; and what information he has about how these figures compare with those for the United Kingdom as a whole.

The total prison population on 1 February 1987 was 1,893, including 225 young offenders centre inmates. This constitutes 0·12 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland. I understand that on 31 December 1986 the prison population of the United Kingdom as a whole was 53,603, or 0·1 per cent. of the civilian population.

How does my hon. Friend account for those figures? Will he confirm that, although the clear-up rates are very similar, the ordinary crime rate in Northern Ireland is significantly lower than the rate in the United Kingdom as a whole?

In Northern Ireland the ordinary crime rate is about 43 crimes per thousand compared with between 65 and 70 per thousand in England and Wales. There is a substantial difference between the two, although, of course, a very substantial percentage of the prison population in Northern Ireland have been convicted of terrorist offences.

In view of the Minister's reply during the last Northern Ireland Question Time, will he tell the House whether he has yet met the Northern Ireland Prison Officers Association, or whether he has plans to do so?

As I said during the last Northern Ireland Question Time, I expected to have an early opportunity to meet the association, and I have done so.

As the serried ranks of the prison population were increased by two sentences at yesterday's Crown Court in Belfast, may I ask what kind of Government incompetence allows millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to pass into the pockets of paramilitary organisations through the building of houses in Northern Ireland? Is this not "On the Waterfront" gangsterism on a grand scale? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that such racketeering and extortion have nothing to do with a united Ireland and nothing to do with union with Great Britain? What, pray, do the Government intend to do about this?

I find it somewhat ironic that such criticism is made at a time when we are beginning to get convictions and I hope that if those accused are found guilty there will soon be more to counter racketeering activities whether in tax exemption certificate fraud, other activities in the construction industry or through drinking clubs, gaming, betting, and so on. We are beginning to choke off the supply of funds from those sources to paramilitary organisations. I am surprised that that is a matter of criticism from the Opposition Front Bench. I believe that all agencies, including the RUC, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Department of the Environment, deserve credit for what is being achieved.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will estimate the proportion of Northern Ireland gross domestic product that is accounted for by public expenditure.

Public expenditure and gross domestic product for Northern Ireland are not available on comparable bases, but using the information that is available, it is estimated that public expenditure amounted to some 73 per cent. of gross domestic product for Northern Ireland in 1985.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that, in this state economy that he is running, public spending per head is some 52 per cent. higher in Northern Ireland than it is in England, housing spending some 357 per cent. higher, and industrial spending some 340 per cent. higher? For how much longer will the taxpayers of Great Britain continue to subsidise this singularly ungrateful Province?

Public expenditure per capita in Northern Ireland is higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom, but that does nothing more than reflect the needs of Northern Ireland. Certainly, it it true that my right hon. Friend has the capacity to choose different priorities. Some areas of expenditure in Northern Ireland are lower per capita than in the rest of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend retains the ability to allocate and decide his priorities.

Will the Minister tell the House what proportion of that 73 per cent. is accounted for by the present security position?

I cannot give the figure in percentage terms, but about ·400 million is accounted for by the security position. Of course, we are anxious about that position and are pursuing policies which, in due course, will diminish that figure.

In the context of public expenditure, can my hon. Friend say when the decision is due on the construction of a lignite-fired power station? Is he aware that such a power station recently caused a most horrific smog in Berlin? Therefore, will the pollution aspects be take into account?

That whole question is under consideration and, obviously, there will be inquiries into the environmental impact. We shall also be taking professional advice on the economic aspects.

Is the Minister aware that institutions in the North, such as the Ulster museum and the universities, are providing an excellent service? Is he further aware that they are having to suffer even more severe cuts than the universities and museums in this country? Will he rectify that position as soon as he can, whatever complaints he may hear from behind him?

The funding of universities in Northern Ireland is carried out on the advice of the University Grants Committee, and there is parity with equivalent institutions on this side of the water. The same is broadly true of the museums in Northern Ireland.

How much public money is involved in the housing racket? Will a commission of inquiry be set up to investigate that racket to discover exactly where the roots lie, especially as it appears that they may lie on this side of the Irish channel? May we have a full statement from the Government?

More than four years ago the Royal Ulster Constabulary established a special unit to investigate these matters. It has persistently continued that inquiry in co-operation with parties in Northern Ireland and on this side of the water. It is true that there is a cross-channel element. In addition to the convictions yesterday, about 140 prosecutions are pending in this broad area. The RUC has done a first-class job in getting to grips with that racket.

Given the high incidence of claims for personal accidents on public property in Ulster—

Not Ulster, Northern Ireland.

Yes, Northern Ireland.

If the hon. Gentleman is urging me to do that, I shall. However, I believe that our system of compensation in Northern Ireland operates on the same basis as it does on this side of the water. We are trying to be fair both to the public purse and to those who suffer injury.

Is my hon. Friend able to say whether the international fund that figured in his calculations of gross domestic product and public expenditure—recognising that in his recent answer to me he said that the money has not yet been spent—has yet been handed over by the Americans and whether it is on deposit, or was it used to buy shares in British Airways or to prop up the punt?

I am tempted to say that those are not matters for me. The International Fund for Ireland has now been established as an independent body. The members of the board have been appointed and the money will become available to the fund in the very near future. It will be up to the members of the board to decide how it is spent.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the projected capital expenditure programme for schools and colleges of further education in the constituency of Newry and Armagh for the financial year 1987–88.

Provision is being made for five major new schemes which will cost an estimated £1· million in 1987–88.

I thank the Minister for that elaboration, and I commend him for the very personal and courteous way in which he announced it in the different constituencies. Will he confirm that when those building expansions are completed, in relation to the constituency of Newry and Mourne the capital expenditure grant will be in the region of£13·5 million?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his personal comments and I pay tribute to him for the diligent way in which he has sought to keep the needs of the schools in his constituency before me. I confirm that the overall estimate of the total cost for the constituency of the new works that I have just announced amounts to £12·962 million, and there are some ongoing capital works that have been carried over from previous years.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had about measures he is taking to introduce a devolved local administration for Northern Ireland to supplement the existing district council and area boards.

My right hon. Friend maintains contact with the leaders of the alliance and SDLP parties. But real progress towards devolution is not possible until the constitutional parties are prepared to hold discussions on these matters. We are ready to facilitate informal preliminary talks among the parties.

Does my hon. Friend agree that article 4 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement makes it clear that both Governments recognise that without the co-operation of the representatives of the whole population in Northern Ireland devolution is a dead letter? If the price of the co-operation of the Unionist majority is to have a referendum—which is to ask only that the people of Northern Ireland should themselves give their support to the agreement—why should that referendum not be held and thus this road block be put out of the way?

Devolution is the preferred option of the British Government, as my hon. Friend is well aware, and that has long been the case. The British Government believe that that is the route down which to go, and it involves all the political parties in Northern Ireland coming together to discuss it. The fact that they are not doing so at the moment is regrettable, but we believe that it is the only sensible way forward.

When the Government consider future constitutional options for Northern Ireland, including devolution, will they take account of British public opinion and the recent poll in the Daily Express—of all newspapers—that 61 per cent. of the British people want the troops to be withdrawn from Northern Ireland, and that despite the support of all the major parties in Britain only 29 per cent. of the British people want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom? When will the British people have some say in how we resolve the problem of Northern Ireland?

The future of Northern Ireland is discussed by the political parties in Northern Ireland with the British Government. That is the route down which we intend to proceed, as our predecessors did before us. We do not deny the difficulties of that, nor do we deny the probably bemused feelings of many members of the British public when they look at some of the constitutional and non-constitutional activities of the political parties in Northern Ireland. However, the way forward is to get the constitutional parties together to discuss, on the grounds of power-sharing and partnership, how to run their own affairs. We are determined to continue down that route.

As we are talking about a single province of a United Kingdom, if there were to be a referendum, should not all the citizens of this United Kingdom participate in it?

That is not an issue of such a constitutional nature as to require a referendum to be held, and I am sure that there would be arguments on both sides as to who should be included in it.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and what issues were discussed.

I meet the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary regularly. Our meetings are confidential and it would not be right to disclose their content.

I note that reply, but is the Secretary of State aware of the increasing evidence now coming to light, concerning the matters which Mr. Stalker was investigating, about the activities of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? If, against the background of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, we really are seeking to build confidence in Northern Ireland, surely it is the duty of the Secretary of State, whatever degree of confidentiality he may have with the chief officer, to see that these matters, unpleasant as they are, are discussed. The people in both Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom have a right to know what the findings about them are.

The hon. Member will be aware of the inquiry being conducted, first, by Mr. Stalker and now by Mr. Sampson. I made it clear to the House on a previous occasion exactly what our position is on that and I have nothing to add to the statement that I made then.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Chief Constable, will he congratulate him on the police work done under the 714 cases? Will he also stress to him that the one thing which the British taxpayer will in no circumstances put up with is the idea that his or her money will be used to fund paramilitary organisations?

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. We take an extremely serious view of this matter. Yesterday's convictions were the latest in a series of successful investigations, and against the impression that this has suddenly come to light I would point out that there were 25 convictions in 1985 and 54 in 1986 and that there are further prosecutions pending. We are determined to see that these matters are pursued extremely vigorously.

Does the Secretary of State not realise that each time he tells the House that he has nothing more to say about the Stalker report, especially after all that has gone on in the past long months and in view of Mr. Stalker's present position, and the more he goes on doing nothing the more everybody thinks that something nasty and dirty is being concealed?

The hon. Member would be the first to complain if he thought that I was interfering in an independent investigation of extremely serious allegations. The hon. Member is aware that the first report of Mr. Sampson is at this moment with the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland—it would, therefore, he quite improper for me to comment on the possible outcome of it—and that the second report on the further allegations, which may lead to possible charges, is at this moment in the final stages of preparation by Mr. Sampson and will, I expect, be forwarded shortly to the Director of Public Prosecutions as well.

Has the Secretary of State had the chance to consider the recommendations of the Standing and Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland, reiterated yeserday by Mr. Peter Barry, that non-jury courts should be replaced by courts of three judges?

That is a matter on which I have made our views clear, and I think that they are well known. In our response to the Standing Advisory Commission we have made it clear that we are anxious to see, as far as possible, an extension of jury trials, which would be the preferred option.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the future funding of education in the Province.

Expenditure in 1987–88 will be £729 million, an increase of £54 million on previous plans. The provisional figures included in Cmnd. 56 plan for a further £60 million increase over the following two years to £790 million in 1989–90. This is a clear indication of the Government's commitment to providing the highest standards of educational opportunity for the young people of Northern Ireland.

Recognising my hon. Friend's strong commitment to continuing educational support in Northern Ireland, may I tell him that it is a matter of great pleasure that so much money is to be put into Northern Ireland? It will be money well spent, because in Northern Ireland we have the highest number of school leavers—22·5 per cent.—with one or more A-levels, whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom the figure is only 17·2 per cent.

I thank my hon. Friend and commend him for his interest in this matter. I am sure the teachers of Northern Ireland will appreciate his comments. I pay tribute to the standards of education in the Province. I know that my hon. Friend will also welcome the new vocational education programme which I have just announced, which will particularly help in science and technology in the secondary intermediate school area.

Is the Minister aware of the strong resentment among the university staff affected by the Butler report, in that the working party gave them no opportunity to discuss their concerns? Will they be given that opportunity before the recommendations are implemented? Can the Minister confirm that none of the options will be foreclosed by the initial conclusions of the working party or group?

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The interim report of the Butler committee was discussed and endorsed by the academic bodies responsible in both universities, and they are now considering how much of a financial consideration is attached to their acceptance of that report. I have made clear to both vice-chancellors and to Sir Clifford Butler that I am willing seriously to consider the representations that they make to me based on that report.

asked the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards awarding contracts to firms which have broken the law or in respect of which inquiries about possible criminal offences are in train; and how this policy has been applied in the case of Electronic Data Systems Ltd.

The Government seek to deal with contractors of integrity who can be expected to fulfil their commitments. Although information on contracts with particular firms is not all held centrally, I am not aware of any current contracts with Electronic Data Systems Ltd.

Does the Prime Minister's answer mean that Electronic Data Systems Ltd. is excluded from potential defence contracts?

No, the answer means what it says, that I am not aware of any current contract with Electronic Data Systems Ltd. With regard to whether it will be considered for any future contracts, it is for the Department awarding a contract to consider the eligibility of EDS for future contracts in the light of the evidence which has emerged and taking into account the nature of the contracts.

Is the Prime Minister aware that this firm is imposing a fine of some £4,000 on employees who leave within a year of completing their training? Does she agree that this is a pernicious form of wage slavery and that it reflects the failure of the Government to provide adequate training in their important industry?

The question I am asked is whether there are any contracts with this firm. The answer is as I have given, that I know of no current contracts with that firm, but in so far as any—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—future contracts are concerned, they will be considered in the light of all the facts, taking into account the nature of the contract. The Government's interest, as I must make quite clear to the hon. Gentleman, is to get value for money and to help improve the competitiveness of suppliers.

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

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

Does the Prime Minister concur with the view that low wages are conducive to increased job opportunities? If she takes that view, could she possibly explain to the House why, in areas with comparatively low wage rates such as the west midlands, the north-east of England, and Scotland—

And Wales.

—and Wales, unemployment is considerably higher than it is in the south-east where wage rates are higher?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that, although, alas, it does not apply to Scotland, unemployment is coming down—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I indicated that a moment ago. Although this month it has not—[Interruption.]

Order.

This is partly because Scotland has quite a number of Christmas school leavers. Unemployment is coming down in Wales, the north-west and the west midlands more rapidly than elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that there are occasions when jobs are available at lower wages, and if higher wages are asked that leads to the extinction of those jobs and people becoming unemployed. So the price of jobs does matter.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the fatuous remarks of Mr. Adelman, the head of the US Arms Control Agency and remind—

Please relate it to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

I am relating my question to the direction of Government policy and No. 10's attitude to these matters. If my right hon. Friend has had time to see these remarks, will she remind the Americans that the Europeans know as much if not more about disarmament and arms control?

I am not certain that I am familiar with the remarks. I shall read them with interest and with a view to maintaining a firm alliance between this side and the other side of the Atlantic on arms control matters.

Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of Question Time to announce that the tax change policies ascribed to her in this morning's newspapers are a falsehood? Because such changes would mean at the very least the doubling of VAT, with devastating consequences on price levels, pensioners, families on low income, employment and industrial costs, will she say that she does not want them?

I read this morning's papers with surprise and with absolutely no knowledge of what would be in them. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this Government have brought down income tax from the rates beloved of Labour of 98 per cent. on savings and 83 per cent. on earnings, and at the same time have increased the amount spent on the social services.

Given her astonishment at this morning's news, will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that such ideas will not be visited on us, certainly this side of the general election? We clearly remember, in common with the rest of the country, the undertaking before the last election not to increase VAT by 100 per cent. yet within six weeks of the election she increased VAT by 80 per cent. Despite the fact that she was elected as a tax-cutting Prime Minister she has since increased the tax burden on families by 10 per cent.

I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that the Government will continue into the next Parliament with their prudent and cautious financial policy, which has resulted in six years of growth, lower income tax rates, a higher standard of living than we ever had before and a higher standard of social services. I hope to be at this Dispatch Box in four or five years' time making the same point.

The Prime Minister will not be doing any of that, not least because she is "high-taxer Thatcher."

That is an absurd comment coming from a supporter of a Government who loved having a tax of 98 per cent. on savings, who loved to decimate the savings of pensioners by high inflation and who loved having tax on earnings of 83 per cent. and put income tax rates up to 35p in the pound. In fact, since 1979, income tax has been cut by £8 billion, the equivalent of £7 per week for the average family.

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

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

Referring to the pledges at the last election, does my right hon. Friend recall that our party gave a pledge to pensioners to keep the pension ahead of inflation, which pledge has been kept? Is the House aware that there are now more than 1 million additional state pensioners? Does my right hon. Friend agree that inflated promises will be no guarantee to future pensioners? Does she further agree with me that pensioners would be absolutely right to fear the possibility of a Government coming in who could not control inflation and could not keep pensions ahead of inflation?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government's policies have led to six years' growth, to cutting taxes and to paying pensions, as my hon. Friend said, to 1 million more pensioners than there were when we came in. Our policies have all along protected savings and the value of pensions. It is an excellent record and the Labour party hates it.

In view of the fact that, since 1980, this country has lost in scientists, engineers and technologists on average 1,000 people a year to the United States of America, how does the Prime Minister justify the UGC cuts in the universities, and especially the cuts at the London Business School and the Manchester Business School at a time when practically everyone thinks there should be increased investment in management education?

In view of the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question to the effect that there have been some losses of scientists, engineers and technologists, it seems to me that he is asking for lower taxation of the top income groups to prevent that drain. We are absolutely delighted to have that endorsement from him. There is something in what he says. With regard to university funding, the recurrent grant to the universities has increased overall by 7 per cent. between 1986–87 and 1987–88. That is a very generous increase. Further, £150 million will he allocated to universities later in the year. The University Grants Committee decides the allocations on the basis of student load and selective judgment of research quality at universities. Because of that, some universities inevitably did better than others.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the revelations recently made by Mr. Ian Curteis on the reason why the BBC banned the production of his Falklands play are yet another example of the treasonable inclinations of those who—

Order. Relate it to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

—manage the security aspects of the BBC? Does she further agree, therefore, that it is essential that the BBC board of governors, which is meeting today to draw up a shortlist of candidates for the director generalship, should choose as candidates only those who have the independence and the Herculean qualities to enable the Augean stables at the BBC to be cleaned up, and finally—

Order. No, not finally.

As my hon. Friend is aware, the choice of a director general is a matter for the chairman and governors of the BBC. I am sure that his remarks will have been noted in the appropriate quarters.

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

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

Will the Prime Minister reconsider the answers that she gives in the House and outside about the increase in real jobs since the slump bottomed in June 1983? In view of the statistical evidence now available, does she recognise that since June 1983 there has been a reduction of 350,000 jobs in manufacturing and that in terms of real jobs, which means full-time employment, the numbers on a comparable basis with June 1983 are exactly the same now as they were then, at just over 21 million?

The hon. Gentleman concentrates his remarks upon manufacturing industry. Jobs in manufacturing industry have been down since the 1960s for reasons that he well knows—because of the technological revolution, and because of the investment which he always urges us to undertake. Since 1983, taking supluses into account as well, 1 million new jobs have been created. That is very good news. Jobs in the service sector are equally important as those in the manufacturing sector. Indeed, they depend upon one another.

Will my right hon. Friend take time during the course of the day to note the formation in Nottinghamshire of the new moderate Labour party with its motto—

Order. Relate it to the Prime Minister's responsibilities, please.

Will my right hon. Friend commend that organisation, bearing in mind that its motto is—

Order. I cannot see how this has anything to do with the Prime Minister's responsibilities. I gave the hon. Gentleman a good chance.

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

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that there appears to be no relationship between low wages and employment, as epitomised in the south-west of England? [Interruption.] Is she further aware that unemployment in Devon and Cornwall is higher than the national average, while wages and earnings are far below the national average, and that a solution to that problem would be the acceptance by the Government tomorrow of my Bill to establish a south-west development agency? Despite the opposition to that Bill of her hon. Friends who represent that area, the Liberals and the SDP, will the Government give the Bill a fair wind?

I thought for one moment that the hon. Gentleman was actually going to represent his constituents. I was disappointed. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look back at what a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer said. He will find that his Chancellor pointed out that there was a relationship between wages and jobs and sometimes, when wages were too high, it meant that jobs were stillborn.