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

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

Since I last answered questions in the House on 30 January, I regret to say that two members of the security forces and four civilians have died in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. Although they continue to bear the brunt of terrorist attacks, the security forces carry out their duties with great courage and dedication. As a result of their efforts during 1985, a total of 522 people were charged with serious offences, including 24 with murder. So far this year 28 people have been charged with serious offences, and 36 weapons, 2,254 rounds of ammunition, and 1,1591b of explosives have been recovered.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I share his admiration for the work of the security forces in the Province. However, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the security forces are fully prepared for the strike on Monday? Are they prepared to cope with any eventuality? Does my right hon. Friend think that the time has come at least to place the Anglo-Irish agreement in cold storage until such time as——

Order. The question concerns security.

—a round table conference takes place?

I very much regret any suggestion that there should be a strike on Monday. I know that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be anxious to take every step that is necessary for the protection of law and order and of all law-abiding citizens who wish to go about their business. That is a matter for it, and it recognises that very clearly. My hon. Friend raised the subject of law and order. I very much regret that the security forces should be distracted from their important work of fighting terrorism by having to cope with the problems that Monday may bring.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the year or months before the Anglo-Irish settlement was reached the number of soldiers in Northern Ireland was reduced, and that since the Anglo-Irish settlement the number of soldiers in Northern Ireland has increased? Will he speculate on how many more soldiers will need to be committed to Northern Ireland as a result of the Anglo-Irish settlement?

The analogy that my hon. Friend seeks to draw is completely false. The reason for the increase in the force numbers is the increase in terrorism, which bears out clearly the statement that I have repeated at this Box that the agreement threatens only the terrorists. They recognise it, and they are determined to take extra measures in every way they can to seek to defeat it. They have launched a series of particularly nasty attacks, leading to the destruction of police stations. We have made it absolutely clear that we shall take the necessary measures for their restoration. That has taken extra forces. I hope that every hon. Member will be determined to stand with us and ensure that if those forces are required for the protection of law abiding citizens and for the defeat of terrorism, they will be provided.

When the Secretary of State next meets leaders of the Unionist parties to discuss security, will he make it clear that the security forces are not helped by the industrial action threatened by the Ulster community? Will he also make the point that when the Unionists refer to themselves as Loyalists, the security forces will have difficulty in understanding, when the Unionist community or their politicians seem to be encouraging every possible effort to defy the constitution and the wishes of Parliament? How can they be constitutionalists when they are prepared to take that type of action?

Those who call, as I do, for all in Northern Ireland to support the security forces recognise the most unsatisfactory paradox of people who demand support for the security forces and then put an additional strain on them. I seriously hope that those who have chosen to embark on that policy will, even at this later hour, think again, because it will be in the interests of nobody in the Province.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what the Government are doing to monitor the growth of Loyalist paramilitary groups? Should he not include that in his general report on security? Will he comment on the fifth arson attack on a Catholic school in Ballymena and say whether the Government are taking action to provide better security than they have in the past?

The information that I have just given about recoveries of arms and prosecutions is not confined to one section of the community, but refers to terrorism from whichever section of the community it may come. I am confident about the determination of the RUC and the security forces to oppose terrorism, from whichever sector it may come.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that security in Northern Ireland has serious implications for the west coast of Scotland, that arms caches have been discovered on several occasions, that the paramilitaries train there and that any upsurge in Protestant-related hostility could have serious repercussions in Scotland?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's point and I understand his concern. I know that he will join me and the Government to ensure that we stand against terrorism and paramilitary activity from whichever quarter it comes.

Will the Secretary of State get a message to members of the Workers Committee 1986 to the effect that while we on the Opposition benches are actively on their side in the quest to retain jobs, we would like to believe that they are equally on our side for the same purpose? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the essential distinction that while lawful demonstrations are by definition a matter for the individual, any attempt to coerce or intimidate people to take part will be dealt with quickly and decisively?

Law and order are matters for the police, but I know that there is a clear determination to ensure that law and order are properly observed. Every step that needs to be taken will be taken to try to protect the citizen and to try to defeat the curse of intimidation. I echo the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in respect of the dispute. The only certain outcome is that it will be damaging to jobs in a Province, which desperately needs more jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to seek to change the form of secondary education in the Province; and if he will make a statement.

There are no plans to change the form of secondary education in Northern Ireland, but I am always willing to consider on their merits any formal proposals for reorganisation which may be submitted in the best interests of local schools and their pupils.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his first reply from the Dispatch Box. I hope that it will be the first of many.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. In 1983–84, the last year for which I have figures, the percentage of all school leavers with one or more A-levels was 22·5 per cent. in Northern Ireland and 17·2 per cent. in England and Wales. The percentage of all school leavers with five or more O-levels or grade one CSEs was 8·7 per cent. in Northern Ireland and 10·7 per cent. in England and Wales.

May I seize the opportunity from the Opposition Benches to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box and to wish him well.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind personal remarks.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has received from the Government of the Republic of Ireland following the representations which he has made about Ireland acceding to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism.

The Irish Minister for Justice signed the European convention on the suppression of terrorism in Strasbourg on 24 February.

What valid reason is known to my hon. Friend for the failure of the Irish Government to accede years ago to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism? What further steps are required to be taken by the Irish Government before the accession becomes operative in the Republic? When does my hon. Friend expect the accession to take effect?

It is for the Irish Government to say why they did not sign the convention earlier. The Taoiseach has said that he hopes that the necessary legislation will be on the statute book by the end of this year. I think that it is relevant to point out that the United Kingdom took 18 months between signing and acceding to the convention.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us feel that this is a most satisfactory development of the Anglo-Irish agreement?

I am sure that the only people who can suffer from this step by the Irish Government are the men of violence in Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress made to date at the Anglo-Irish conference; and if he will make a statement.

Since I last reported to the House there has been a meeting on legal affairs within the framework of the conference. At the same meeting I discussed security co-operation with Mr. Noonan, the then Minister of Justice. A joint statement was issued after the meeting giving an account of our work. I have placed it in the Library. The meeting was useful and constructive, and I am encouraged by the commitment of both sides to make rapid progress to ensure that cross-border security co-operation is as close and effective as possible.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I acknowledge and welcome the step taken on the security front. I should like to express our continued support for the agreement. I trust that the Government will maintain their firm resolve in these matters. Have we got round to talking within the conference on the subject of the administration of justice, which is covered, I think, by section 7?

I expect that further discussions on that aspect will take place shortly. I appreciate the administrative support that we have. I think that we are starting to make progress. Whatever the reasons for not signing the European convention, many Unionists did not believe in that item when it was included in the communiqué. They thought that the document either would not be signed or, if signed, not for a considerable period. The fact that the Irish Government and the Taoiseach made that announcement when they did is encouraging.

Are not the Unionists' reactions to the talks at Downing street—they seemed to give some measure of encouragement but have now been translated into even firmer intransigence—likely to alienate the rest of the British people, who give time, energy and a great deal of money to try to help the Province?

I am well known as a strong supporter of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. I fully support the commitment of the whole of the United Kingdom to the defeat of terrorism and the achievement of a more stable, prosperous and happy society in Northern Ireland. The present developments are extremely worrying in the sense that they stir up the sort of comments that my hon. Friend has made. I am anxious to cement the relationship, and at the moment I am worried that some Unionists are working precisely in the opposite direction to their professed ambition.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the agreement is no part of the law of the United Kingdom?

I think that that point is clearly understood. It is an agreement which confers benefits on both communities in Northern Ireland. It is an agreement also to work together with the Government of the Republic for the benefit of the people in the north of Ireland and the people in the whole of Ireland. I confirm the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be no progress with the conference without the consent of the majority? Coercion will not be the way to achieve that consent. In those terms, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will pursue the concept of round table talks, because out of those talks could come a new framework for Northern Ireland, which may or may not include the Anglo-Irish at least treaty as it is currently constituted, but may at least, show the way ahead?

I very much agree with the point that my hon. Friend made when opening his question. I think he would agree that coercion can have no part in this, and that is precisely the spirit of seeking a sensible way forward that has motivated my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and me, and has motivated us in the discussions that we had. I suppose it is that that adds the peculiar sense of disappointment that we have at the subsequent events. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) remarked afterwards at the press conference:

"We have got away from deadlock".

With the dangerous events that are proceeding in the Province, does the Secretary of State not agree that while it is absolutely true that there is no way in which the North could be put into the South against its wishes, it is equally true that the union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland could be broken by the Unionists? There is a grave danger that this is what might happen in the months ahead.

I obviously respect very much the right hon. Gentleman's great experience and knowledge of this subject. I fear that the threat to the Union could come from those who most claim to espouse it, and at the moment some of them appear to be embarking on a course which is in direct collision with this "sovereign imperial Parliament".—as they would describe it—of the United Kingdom. It is a serious matter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who support the Union and support him in his job are very disappointed to see the absence from this home of democracy of all the Unionist leaders, except the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell)?

I know the strength of feeling over this matter in Northern Ireland, and I respect that. All of us who are democrats know that it is in this Chamber that those matters should be discussed and argued. A policy of abstention, an unwillingness even to enter into debate and argument, is not a policy of strength—it is a policy of weakness and a policy of disaster.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what indications he has as to the impact of the Anglo-Irish agreement on the security situation in Northern Ireland; and will he make a statement.

Our discussions at the Intergovernmental Conference have already set in train a programme of work between the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana. It will, inevitably, take time for the full benefits of this work to show, but I am optimistic that this will enable us progressively to deal more effectively with terrorism. The signature this week by the Government of the Republic of the European convention on the suppression of terrorism also bodes well for future security co-operation.

Is not the virtual abdication of any political responsibility by the two main Unionist leaders bound to create a difficult and delicate security situation on Monday? There is the likelihood that the hard men will take over. May we have an assurance that there will be the widest mobilisation of the security forces to preserve the peace and ensure that those people who want to go to work will get to work without having barricades and thugs all over the place preventing them, as they did on a previous occasion?

I deplore the fact that the action on Monday is likely only to divert the resources of the RUC away from its principal task of combating terrorism. It is up to the police to decide how Northern Ireland is policed in the light of the circumstances that are likely to arise on Monday, but I am confident that we can look to them to do their duty.

The agreement is described in The Times today as a constitutional monstrosity. Its consequences are predictable and were predicted from the Conservative Benches, but is it not desirable that nothing should be said, done or not done on Monday that could endanger security or jobs, in particular those at Harland and Wolff?

I echo that sentiment, but those who have embarked on that course and who are urging people to take that course will bear the responsibility for whether it puts pressure on the security forces, for whether it puts the life of the elderly or infirm at risk and for any other damage that is done to jobs in Northern Ireland at present or in the future.

Is not the Anglo-Irish agreement's concentration on security undermined by the comment of a Mr. Peter Clark made last night on Border Television during an interview? He is a Downing street adviser and a Conservative candidate in Scotland. He said that one side has to win and he would fancy changing the border by retaking county Donegal—[Interruption.]

Order.

Will the Minister dissociate himself from such irresponsible conduct by a Conservative candidate and Downing street adviser?

The Anglo-Irish agreement is designed to bring peace and reconciliation to Northern Ireland. That is the Government's intention. We face opposition from the Unionist community at the moment and we are sensitive to that, but we have every intention of making the agreement work.

In the context of the professed ambitions of the two main Unionist leaders, has my hon. Friend been able to discern whether they are for integration or devolution?

It is not for me to say. My hon. Friend will be as aware as I am that within the Unionist family there are divergent opinions on the constitutional way forward. The Government are convinced that the way forward lies with devolution back to the political parties representing both traditions in Northern Ireland so that day-to-day decisions may be taken by locally elected political leaders.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young people have joined the youth training programme in Northern Ireland in 1985–86 compared with the two previous years.

To date this year 14,936 young people have joined the youth training scheme in Northern Ireland compared with 12,742 in the previous year and 11,575 in 1983–84.

How many of the trainees on the youth training programme are subsequenty placed in jobs?

I can give the information that my hon. Friend desires. This year, 57 per cent. of those aged between 16 and 17 who have done the one-year course have left to go to jobs. That is 2 per cent. more than last year and 6 per cent. more than two years ago. One can say that the scheme is working.

Has the Minister had cases brought to his attention where young unemployed people have been unable to avail themselves of youth training because of their inability to acquire the basic necessary kit.

The answer is no.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many placements have been achieved by Northern Ireland job markets so far in 1985–86 compared with the same period in 1984–85.

By 7 February 1986, job markets in Northern Ireland had placed 27,063 people in employment in the current financial year. This compares with 22,520 during the same period in 1984–85.

I take great encouragement from what my hon. Friend has said about the advances over the past 12 months. Is he able to tell the House whether large numbers have moved into self-employment or direct employment, or what trends might be expected?

I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend. There has been a 20 per cent. increase in placements this year. At the same time, there has been a 13 per cent. increase in vacancies notified. There has been an increase of about 7 per cent. in self-employment over the past three years, raising the total of self-employed from 80,000 to 85,000 in the Province.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way forward for the job market in Northern Ireland is for all firms to continue working as normal? Does he agree that it would be a tragedy and a disgrace if jobs and orders were put at risk by political strikes?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. If we have a series of political strikes, or any successful political strikes, that could put at risk the delivery of goods to foreign markets, all that we shall be doing is creating unemployment, not only for the present generation, but for those who are now children in school.

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

Security co-operation on the ground between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda is already good, but I am confident that as a result of the Anglo-Irish agreement we shall see an enhancement in the co-ordination of security at all levels. At the next meeting of the conference we shall be considering a progress report from the Chief Constable and the Commissioner of the Garda Soichana on the programme of work referred to in article 9(a) of the agreement.

Cross border security appears to have improved since the signing of the agreement, most notably resulting in the two arms finds in the Republic recently. Therefore, is it not surprising that the Unionists, who have been demanding closer co-operation in security matters with the Dublin Government for so many years, appear not to be happy about that aspect of the agreement and are still trying to undermine it?

I have repeated my disappointment too many times from the Dispatch Box. I understand the concern of Unionists about certain aspects of the agreement. They undermine the quality of their opposition by refusing to recognise the merits and benefits that there could be. Any objective observer knows perfectly well that if we are to make an impact on terrorism the problems of the border have to be met. That is not the sole reason for terrorism, but it is one of the resources that the terrorists use and that is where we can get real benefit for every law-abiding person in the Province.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Monday's madness will not do anything to help cross border security? Will he make it clear to those who are seen to be setting themselves up as some form of Afrikaaners of Ulster that he and this House will not be bullied into suspending or scrapping the Anglo-Irish agreement?

It is quite clear that if the action on Monday takes place in the form envisaged it will put a great strain on the resources of the security forces. Obviously, in that respect it may put others at risk, particularly if there were to be problems with terrorism. That must be recognised and understood. I do not approach the problems arising from, and the criticism of, the agreement in an atmosphere of hostility towards the Unionists. The atmosphere at 10 Downing street two days ago was entirely constructive in trying to find a way in which we could seek to meet legitimate concerns in a constructive and profitable way. I regret very much that for the moment those approaches appear to have been totally rebuffed.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that there are Unionists in Northern Ireland who are not in favour of the so-called strike, who are in favour of the Anglo-Irish agreement and who are not prepared to follow in the footsteps of the abominable no-men on Monday? Will the Secretary of State also confirm that there is a sizeable section of the population in the north of Ireland which is not Unionist and is firmly in favour of the proposals contained in the Anglo-Irish agreement?

It is true that there is significant support, certainly in the minority community, for the Anglo-Irish agreement. There are many more, I think an increasing number of responsible Unionists who are now beginning to recognise some of the benefits that can flow, not least from the fact that there is a movement of votes from the party which advocates violence to the constitutional nationalist approach. I continue to emphasise that point, and the hon. Gentleman is in a position to know, it better than anybody. That is something of long-lasting benefit to everybody in the Province.

Has my right hon. Friend seen a special supplement in Police Review dated 31 January called

"The Grim Statistics—A tribute to the RUC",

I have not seen that article, but the point arose earlier today about the increase in Army resources, which is precisely to deal with some of the problems of terrorism, not least on the border.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many workers under 21 years presently work in industries in Northern Ireland covered by wages councils agreements.

It is estimated that some 6,000 workers in the wages council system in Northern Ireland are under the age of 21 years.

Is the Minister aware that in our debates on wages council reform Tory Members and Ministers said that 8,000 jobs would be created over five years from the abolition of protection for those under the age of 21? Is he aware that that works out at 37 jobs a year for the 17 constituencies in Northern Ireland? Is the Minister and his colleagues, who earn up to £40,000 a year, telling 6,000 young workers who earn £30 or £40 a week that they must take wage cuts of £5 or £10 a week, when 125,000 people are unemployed; to create only 37 jobs a year?

I hope that every hon. Member will welcome any extra jobs in Northern Ireland, in whatever constituency they are created. Obviously there is a difference of opinion between the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members about wages councils. On 11 February we debated the Wages Bill. We believe that if juvenile wages are too high compared with adult wages there will be juvenile unemployment. Compared with Germany and the rest of Europe, juvenile wages in the United Kingdom are undoubtedly higher, and we have higher juvenile unemployment.

Does my hon. Friend agree that young people would rather gain work experience at the going rate and get involved in jobs than be unemployed at a theoretical and far too high wage rate?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Surveys have shown that 80 per cent. of young people want jobs. Obviously if they are trained in those jobs they can, as full journeymen and adults, earn higher wages. If they do not get a job in the first place, they will be on the dole for years to come.

Is the Minister aware that since 1979 youth wages throughout the United Kingdom have dropped considerably, and youth unemployment has risen massively? Is he further aware that wages in Northern Ireland are lower than in any other part of the United Kingdom? Is he seriously advocating further cuts in the wages of young workers in Northern Ireland?

We would all welcome a high-wage economy in Northern Ireland by people working, producing the right goods and selling them throughout the world. If one compares juveniles' wages in the United Kingdom with apprentices' wages in West Germany, one sees that in the United Kingdom they are 50 to 60 per cent. of the adult wage, whereas in Germany they are between 15 and 25 per cent., which means that there is less juvenile unemployment there.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many days were lost in Northern Ireland through industrial disputes in 1985; and how this compares with the figures for Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

The Northern Ireland figure is 80 days per 1,000 employees, compared with 110 for Great Britain, excluding the miners' strike. In recent years, figures for the Republic of Ireland have been consistently higher than those for Northern Ireland, and we estimate that that will also be the case for 1985.

Cannot that encouraging news about the Province be communicated to potential investors abroad, rather than the damaging headline-grabbing efforts planned for next Monday?

I welcome my hon. Friend's comment. Indeed, last month I spoke about the Labour Relations Agency, which reports that all foreign employers in Northern Ireland are satisfied with labour relations and productivity. We shall ensure that that information is spread, as my hon. Friend asks, and we hope that nothing will be done on Monday to undermine that image.

Noting the Minister's response to industrial relations in Northern Ireland as foreign firms see them, will he confirm that a recent poll in the Belfast Telegraph showed that the overwhelming majority of people were against violence and the majority revealed their opposition to a strike? Will the Minister tell the House what the impact of Monday's strike is likely to be on job prospects in Northern Ireland?

There is no doubt that if there is a widespread strike on Monday in Northern Ireland that will have serious industrial repercussions in two ways. First, it will affect investment coming into Northern Ireland which we desperately want. Secondly, buyers in other countries will be doubtful of the security of placing orders and whether the deliveries will be made on time. All workers and employers in Northern Ireland should bear that in mind when they make their decisions on Monday.

Is it not worrying that the threat of Monday's strike could well damage a successful company such as Shorts which has worldwide and United Kingdom commitments that are important to the future of the Province? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to urge the workers in that great company to continue on what is already a successful path and avoid industrial action on Monday?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments and I entirely endorse what he said. The best thing that industrial workers can do on Monday — indeed, the best thing that all workers can do on Monday — is to go to work. That will show that they are concerned about the security of their employment, show the rest of the world that work is continuing in that area and that the Province is reliable, both for investment and for purchasing from.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the operations of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Northern Ireland.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act continues to play an important part in the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland. Detailed statistics on the operation of the Act in Northern Ireland are given in quarterly bulletins published by the Northern Ireland Office. Copies of these are available in the Library.

May I have a straight answer to a question that I have repeatedly asked for the past three months? Is it illegal, under section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, for insurance companies in London and elsewhere in the United Kingdom to make payments directly or indirectly to the IRA? Is that illegal?

The hon. Gentleman has asked me this or associated questions on four occasions. If he has a shred of evidence which shows that any illegal act has taken place, he should send that evidence to the police.

Is it not also true that a number of people in Northern Ireland and on this side of the water are alive today who would otherwise be dead if it were not for the Prevention of Terrorism Act? Is it not a disgrace that the Opposition should have consistently voted on three-line Whips against that life-preserving measure?

My hon. Friend echoes a point that I have made several times from the Dispatch Box on both the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. If the Opposition came to office they would find that, within a matter of days, they, like us, would need these powers in the battle against terrorism.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if his Department has assessed the impact on single persons, pensioners and low-income families of the provisions relating to Northern Ireland of the Social Security Bill; and if he will make a statement.

As it is the Government's intention that the long-established and widely accepted principle of parity with Great Britain should remain the basis for provision of social security in Northern Ireland, it follows that the impact of the proposed reform on single persons, pensioners and low-income families will be generally the same in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain.

May I help the hon. Gentleman a little further? Has he seen the calculations by Dr. Eileen Evason, which show that single people in Northern Ireland stand to lose an annual total of £8·9 million, pensioners £11·4 million, low-income families £3·3 million and families as a whole £8·8 million? Will he tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services that the people of Northern Ireland have suffered enough deprivation?

I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I have seen those figures. I pay tribute to Dr. Eileen Evason for the valuable work that she does in the Province. However, her figures are speculative and mainly based on the likely size of the social fund, and that has as yet not been decided.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when it is proposed to hold a meeting of a sub-group consisting of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice and the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ireland as referred to in the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference; and if he will make a statement.

We had a meeting on 13 February with the Attorney-General, at which we discussed extradition, the possible harmonisation of parts of the criminal law, and the search for measures to enhance public confidence in the administration of justice.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on anticipating the question from Her Majesty's Opposition and so promptly calling a meeting of the sub-group. Was not this meeting a mini Intergovernmental Conference, which shows that there is a positive attitude to the Anglo-Irish agreement from both the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic of Ireland? Will he confirm that progress will continue to be made to improve the confidence of the Nationalist community, in the judiciary and in the administration of the justice which is likely to be one of the litmus tests of the Anglo-Irish agreement? Will he further confirm that these matters will be on the agenda of the next meeting of the full Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference?

One of the matters that was discussed at our meeting concerned improving the arrangements for extradition. Anyone who knows anything about the battle against terrorism knows that it is vital to be able to pursue terrorists wherever they may go. That is one of the obvious benefits which I hope will flow from this agreement.

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

Will the Prime Minister reaffirm that the Anglo-Irish agreement stands, regardless of what happens next Monday, and that no amount of violence, intimidation or paramilitary force will change the mind of the large majority of British people who are clearly in favour of the agreement? Is it not the case that if a power-sharing agreement had not been destroyed 12 years ago by the Unionists there would have been no need for such an agreement in the first place?

I make it clear that should the strike go ahead on Monday the action will not deflect the Government from their determination to implement the new Anglo-Irish agreement, which has the support of the overwhelming majority of both Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom.

When my right hon. Friend reflects upon the largest export order ever obtained by this country, does she also reflect on the vicious personal attacks made upon her when she went to Saudi Arabia and did so much of the work that resulted in that contract?

I leave any attacks on me aside—if one puts oneself in the front line in politics, one will get shot at, as we see every Tuesday and Thursday. I congratulate British Aerospace on the excellent order that it has received, and thank Saudi Arabia for the faith that it has placed in our factories, their management and those who work in them.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Customs and Excise has today raided around 30 premises, one of which is the headquarters of Johnson Matthey Bankers? Is she further aware that there have been some 12 arrests, that Customs and Excise is investigating as much as £7·25 million in gold bullion which, it appears, may have been smuggled into the country, and that the Bank of England has confirmed that Johnson Matthey Bankers is co-operating with Customs and Excise? In view of the fact that the Prime Minister on 2 August 1985 refused my request to set up a tribunal of inquiry on the very issue of the unsoundness of—[Interruption.] Some £185 million worth of this country's money has been given to Johnson Matthey Bankers. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister refused to conduct a tribunal of inquiry at the Governor of the Bank of England's insistence — [Interruption.]

Order. This is a very long question.

It is a very important matter, Mr. Speaker.

Order. But equally, fair shares all round.

Since the Governor of the Bank of England has repeatedly said that the banking and gold bullion business of Johnson Matthey Bankers is sound, will the Prime Minister now set up a tribunal of inquiry?

No, Sir. I understand that Customs officers visited a number of premises today, including Johnson Matthey's. They visited those premises this morning in the course of investigating possible VAT irregularities involving gold. Johnson Matthey Bankers issued a press statement. The Customs officers were following the responsibilities laid on them by statute and, of course, such cases are not referred to Ministers.

rose——

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the latest lunacy on the part of Derbyshire county council, which has ordered the banning of The Times newspaper from public libraries and educational establishments because of the dispute at Wapping? Is that not the latest example——

Order. The hon. Gentleman's question must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I asked whether the Prime Minister would comment on it.

The banning of newspapers is small-minded and smacks of censorship.

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

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the anger in my constituency among the 390 employees of British Airways Helicopters, based in my constituency, about the negotiations to sell the company to Coln Valley Investments? Is she further aware that Mr. Martin Meade is the subject of litigation over an alleged offence under section 330 of the Companies Act 1985, involving £18,000 of expenses? Coln Valley Investments last registered its accounts in 1982, when it made a loss of £40,000. Will the Prime Minister intervene and urge British Airways to break off negotiations with this cowboy operator, which has a record of asset-stripping and job destruction?

No, I will not intervene. If the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the matter, he can take it up with British Airways.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the deep and deepening anger felt by a great many of us over the fact that in a part of the United Kingdom an agreement designed to improve the security of the whole of the United Kingdom is being undermined by actions, some of which are not even legal?

I have indicated our approach to this strike. I hope that it will not take place, but if it does, and if it takes place in the name of Unionism, it will lead to the erosion of support for the Union in the United Kingdom.

Is it not desirable that this House should have the opportunity, for the first time, to debate the principle under which an external court purports to lay down what legislation may or may not be passed or must be passed by this House?

I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the decision of the European Court. That was a limited decision about the age at which women may retire from the public service. The decision was made under a law passed by this House and the consequences flow from it.

Before 7 o'clock, will my right hon. Friend look again at the Order Paper, on which there is an amendment tabled by the Procedure Committee, which is now supported by 150 hon. Members, right hon. Members, ex-Ministers, ex-Whips and even a senior ex-Chief Whip? Perhaps, as a birthday present to me, my right hon. Friend will follow the recommendations of her advisers that this amendment should be the subject of a free vote—really as a free vote—and will ensure that certain unknown influences—perhaps not so unknown—will not drum Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries into the Lobby to vote against it?

I wish my hon. Friend a happy birthday and congratulate him on his assiduous work. I am sure that, at the end of the debate to which he referred, he will hear most excellent advice from my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.

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

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

Given the Prime Minister's support for Victorian values and family life, may I ask why she supports the Sunday trading Bill? Will she give Back-Bench Members a free vote on the matter?

Yes, I support the Sunday trading Bill. I do not believe that the restriction of choice should apply to Sunday trading when it does not apply to so many other things on a Sunday. People must make their own choice.

Will my right hon. Friend join many people in congratulating the Leader of the Opposition on his efforts to rid the Labour party of the hard Left, but would she remind him——

Order. Questions must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibility.

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

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

In view of the Government's insistence that the miners should have held a ballot before their recent industrial action, why do the Government not support the Fleet street print workers, who held a ballot and voted 7:1 in favour of industrial action?

I notice that the hon. Lady referred to the miners. It is one year ago today since the miners' strike was ended—a strike which the Opposition supported through the bitterest, cold weather. The printers made their own choice on a ballot, and must take the reasonable consequences which flow from the choice which they freely made.

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

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

Yesterday, in another place, it was suggested that drug traffickers should be injected with their own poison and left out in the street to die. Despite what might be the initial attractions of that policy, does my right hon. Friend agree that a better policy would be to fight demand by effective education, to fight supply by international co-operation through intelligence and drug eradication programmes, and to fight the profits of drug trafficking by imposing long prison sentences, equivalent to those for premeditated murder, and by confiscation of the profits of drug traffickers?

I agree with my hon. Friend that we must fight drug trafficking through education, Customs, the police and the courts. I am sure that he ardently supports the Bill now before the House to enable us to confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking, which I hope will be speedily set on its way so that we may carry it into action.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that she likes an upsurge of patriotism, but she likes it accompanied by action. Is her idea of action or, indeed, patriotism, selling off assets built up by the contributions of the British people? They have put up. Does she believe that they should shut up?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that, by Tuesday, we shall have some idea of the numbers of people who wish to bid and an idea of the approximate amount. I can say no more until all those bids are in and have been properly and thoroughly discussed.

The Prime Minister reminds us that next Tuesday is the deadline. Does that not stand on their head her claims yesterday and previously that consortia of bids could be built up for an offer for which there is no prospectus, but for which there is a deadline? Does that not make her claims absolute nonsense and show that she was never serious about competitive tendering and bidding in any case?

No. The right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. Those who are interested in making genuine bids—the trade unions could have done the self-same thing—could have obtained the information from the Department of Trade and Industry or British Leyland.

That is another of Maggie's myths. Does she not know that the total combined assets of British trade unions are less than £500 million, and that it is nonsense to suggest that the trade unions could mount a bid for purchase? I ask her again: when the British people have bought and paid for a high technology company, many parts of which are turning into profit, why does she want to flog it off to foreigners?

If the right hon. Gentleman has such faith, he must know that there are many pension funds, with enormous assets belonging to the unions, which could purchase into that company. The right hon. Gentleman wants British Leyland to be a permanent pensioner on the pockets of his constituents. We do not—[Interruption.]

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

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

Will my right hon. Friend stick to her plans for public expenditure and not pursue policies such as those of the Opposition, whose plans call for an increase in value added tax of almost 41 per cent.?

It would be our purpose to do exactly what my hon. Friend has said. It is no part of our policy to try to take an increasing proportion of people's earnings through income tax. We believe that they work harder so that they have more for their own families, not to pay more to the Government.