asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his recent discussions in the United States of America concerning the proposed extradition treaty covering those facing terrorism charges in the United Kingdom and taking refuge in the United States of America.

My purpose in visiting the United States was to meet leading Americans who take a close interest in Northern Ireland affairs. Among the matters discussed were the supplementary extradition treaty, the MacBride principles and the international fund. I am satisfied that the many Senators, Congressmen and others I met recognise the importance of achieving early ratification of a satisfactory treaty, and I hope that that will be achieved.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, has he noticed that the opposition of Senators and Congressmen is argued strongly on constitutional grounds? Does he agree that that may be humbug when considered alongside the behaviour of the same Senators and Congressmen in responding to requests for extradition by the Israeli Government for alleged terrorists? Will he tell those with whom he is in contact that this form of vote-grubbing, ethnic politics, when considered with tourist cancellations and the behaviour meted out to Mark Thatcher, which was announced this morning, is generating a dangerous level of anti-American feeling in this country?

I tried to convey some of the feelings that my hon. Friend has conveyed robustly to the House in the context of the importance that we attach to working closely with the United States Government in the joint fight against terrorism. I made it clear that that was vital. After the Toyko summit, where President Reagan and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stood closely together in agreement on the importance of improving arrangements in the fight against international terrorism, and specifically mentioned the importance of effective extradition, it would be tragic if the two leaders of the Western world in this respect were unable to reach agreement.

Is the Secretary of State aware that if America means business in tackling terrorism, the supplementary extradition treaty should be ratified as he proposes? What aspects of Noraid have been outlawed in the United States, and what progress did the Secretary of State make on that? Is it not time that the President told his people to stop cowering at home, chicken-hearted as they are in the face of terrorism, and to get out into the world and especially visit Britain, which is a safer haven than America?

Without commenting on the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I must say that there are some muddled ideas in the United States about the risks that are involved in terrorism. One American told me that Americans thought that Europe was too dangerous to visit this year but they might come to Ireland instead. I sought to correct the Americans' problems with their perception of terrorism, and I tried to emphasise once again the safety and security of the United Kingdom and how welcome they would be as visitors.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend argued the British case on the extradition treaty very strongly, but I want to emphasise the points that have already been made about the strength of feeling on this matter. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the treaty were rejected by the Senate it would have immense consequences for the Anglo-American relationship, and, in view of the support that we gave to the Americans in the Libyan crisis and in the light of the Tokyo conference, to which he has already referred, it would, to quote the American ambassador,

"reek of selfishness and hypocrisy"

I should like to report to my hon. Friend and to the House that that was very much the message that I sought to deliver during my visit to Washington. I should like to feel that it was very generally received, and I respect that, along with the support that we had. I pay tribute to the President, and I include Ambassador Price in my remarks. He has given clear and unequivocal leadership in this issue, which we appreciate. As my hon. Friend rightly says, it simply would not be understood, when it is perceived that the first asset of any terrorist is a passport, if we were to allow that facility between two of the leading nations of the Western world so that terrorists can thumb their noses and escape scot free.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he had to say while he was in the United States about the MacBride principles? I understand that the Government are opposed to them, yet their aim is surely to encourage American firms in Northern Ireland to move against discrimination, which is far too high in employment? Why are the British Government opposed to the MacBride principles if they are in favour——

Order. Is this to do with extradition?

The Secretary of State mentioned the MacBride principles in his main answer.

The British Government are committed to the elimination of discrimination in employment. The Fair Employment Agency was set up by the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 to achieve exactly those objectives. The problem about the MacBride principles is that in certain respects they are in conflict with our legislation. Our legal advice is that they will lead to legal actions, which will lead to problems for the companies concerned. The problem now is that the threat behind the MacBride principles is disinvestment. That is the sanction that is to be applied. I genuinely believe that, far from helping employment for the minority community, they are a threat to all employment in Northern Ireland. They will discourage investment and will penalise the employment not only of Protestants—the majority community—but of Catholics. If the hon. Lady talks to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the Irish Government, who have been vocal advocates of fair employment, she will find that they are equally opposed to the application of the MacBride principles.

Before the treaty was signed, what consideration was given to the chances of getting this through Congress, bearing in mind that Congress alone has the power of ratification of treaties in the United States and that the treaty's provisions go far further than do most extradition treaties? Were we not asking the Americans too much?

I am appalled at my hon. Friend's contribution. I am not sure in what respect he would propose amendments to the treaty that we have. There have been suggestions that people who murder by rifle, not machine gun, or by explosion, but not machine gun, might somehow be exempted. I do not know in what respect my hon. Friend suggests amendment. Those amendments are unacceptable to me. I said clearly in the United States that murder is murder and that those who commit terrorist offences should be brought back. That should be the pattern for future extradition treaties. Of course it cannot be guaranteed in advance that the Senate will advise and consent to ratification, but I very much hope that it will on this occasion.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the argument is said to arise from a reluctance to extradite for political offences? First, will he confirm that the House unanimously rejects any suggestion that gangsterism in any cause is a political activity? Can he or his colleagues in the Government help the international community to formulate a criterion which will recognise the legitimate limits of political asylum while ensuring that the civilised world contains no hiding place for those who live by the gun?

I should like to feel that this House is as good a bastion as either of the Houses of Government in the United States for the genuine rights of political asylum. We are distinguishing between those who hold genuine political beliefs and those who use terrorist methods in the pursuit of certain activities. Those are the people whom we cannot tolerate in a civilised society.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about progress in implementing the Anglo-Irish agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent talks he has had with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

The Anglo-Irish agreement has now been in force for six months. During that time the Intergovernmental Conference has met five times. The last meeting took place in London on 9 May. The joint statements issued after each meeting have been placed in the Library of the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of the people of the United Kingdom strongly support this agreement and recognise that it will take some considerable time for its full benefits to be felt? Is he further aware that if there had been any doubts about the wisdom of the agreement they would rapidly have been removed by the apparent attitude of hostility and concern which the IRA and other men of violence express towards the agreement?

There is no doubt that the IRA is the organisation which most fears this agreement. It sees the agreement as a major threat, and it is right to do so. It is our determination to smash terrorism, and through that agreement it is now the joint determination of the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic. However, it is also an approach that recognises in the agreement that while the majority has its rights and traditions, there is also a minority which has its rights and traditions which also deserve to be respected. Therefore, the Anglo-Irish agreement seeks to deal fairly in both respects by giving the reassurance, with the acceptance of the Republic, of the principle of consent in the position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, subject to the majority view in Northern Ireland and to give that reassurance to the minority community as well.

As the perfectly justifiable demand for Irish reunification is considered to be too sensitive a subject for inclusion on the agenda for talks with representatives of the Republic, is there at least some hope of discussing other issues of possible agreement, such as the abolition of the killer plastic bullets and the abolition of the supergrass trials, which are an absolute travesty of justice? They would be abolished under the private Member's Bill introduced on Tuesday of this week by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).

The Anglo-Irish agreement not only confirms the acceptance by the Government of the Republic of the rights of the majority in Northern Ireland and the principle of consent against being compelled into a united Ireland against its wish, but recognises that no wish to be so compelled exists at present. That is an important confirmation by the Government of the Republic, and that is why the matter is not on the agenda of the conference.

In the absence of any prospects for devolution in Northern Ireland on a basis that would be widely acceptable throughout the community, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing body of opinion in the Province which believes that the best way forward now is through integration, which would offer proper safeguards for the minority in Northern Ireland? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that integration is not inconsistent with the Anglo-Irish agreement?

The Government have made clear their commitment to seeking to achieve devolution and devolved government in the Province. I do not accept my hon. Friend's initial premise that there is an absence of any possibility of achieving that. I hope that it will be possible to sit down and discuss ways in which this could be achieved. I make it clear that while the Government are always willing to consider ways in which legislation might be handled, carrying that forward into some concept of total integration would raise difficult issues.

In recent discussions with representatives of the Irish Government, did the right hon. Gentleman raise again the question of kidnap insurance? Is he aware that the publication Lloyd's Underwriting Syndicates revealed that the Lords Norfolk, St. Helens, Marlborough, Davenport, Romsey, Peel and Freyberg are all names in underwriting firms which are managed by managing agents Cassidy Davies? This firm offers kidnap insurance and has made payments to the IRA. Does the Secretary of State intend to intervene to ensure that the terms of section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act are complied with and to stop the sale of this kidnap insurance?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Dr. FitzGerald agreed with an RTE radio interviewer on 18 May that Nationalist lives had been put under threat as a result of the agreement, and that that was expected? Was that also expected by Her Majesty's Government when they entered into the agreement?

If Nationalist lives have been put under threat, the threats presumably come from the majority community. I know that my hon. Friend will join me in deploring any threats, whether they come against the police or the Nationalist community, in the present situation in Northern Ireland.

Does the Secretary of State recall that those of us who said that the agreement should be given a chance also argued that it should be known by its fruits? After six months, will the right hon. Gentleman enumerate the fruits that are ripening? Have there been any consequences for the provision of jobs, for community welfare or for civil liberties? Can he make any forecast as to when we may expect a harvest?

As I made clear earlier, it will take time for the long-term changes and improvements in attitudes and reconciliation to be apparent. It is already apparent that the groundwork has been laid in the increasingly close cooperation on security, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that a whole series of meetings are taking place, and that a programme of work has been established, not just between the Chief Constable of the RUC and the Commissioner, but right down the line.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to take action on the recent proposal of the Chief Constable to establish an independent tribunal to deal with the routeing of traditional marches.

The Chief Constable's suggestion is one of a number of matters which my right hon. Friend will consider when re viewing public order legislation for Northern Ireland in the light of the Public Order Bill for Great Britain currently before Parliament.

Following the violence at Portadown last July and the growing concern about the marching season this year, has the Minister not missed the opportunity of introducing a real change that would stop Dublin from being blamed for unnecessary interference in deciding where the marches should be routed?

The public order legislation that we may be introducing in the autumn is the proper vehicle for any legislative change in this matter. We want to consider carefully this suggestion, among others, some of which have been discussed in the Committee on the Public Order Bill.

Is my hon. Friend aware that officers of the Conservative Back-Bench aviation committee visited the United States over the recess, and discussed with Congressman and Senators activities such as the routeing of marches in Northern Ireland? There was confusion in the minds of these opinion formers and leaders in the United States about the democratic way in which we handle such activities. In fact, they were in doubt whether Northern Ireland was a democracy. They were confusing Northern Ireland with the non-democratic activities of other countries over terrorism, marches, and so on. It is that confusion that is causing enormous problems in the United States in presenting Northern Ireland as a democracy.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend's visit to the United States will have cleared the minds of a number of people on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) will be in the United States in the near future. We consistently seek to explain the basis and the fairness of society in Northern Ireland, because we need international support in the battle against terrorism and because we want people to invest in the jobs that are so vital to the future of the Province.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors led him to advise Her Majesty to exercise the royal prerogative of mercy in respect of William Allen.

It is not our practice to give details of reasons for exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy.

Is the Minister aware that there is great concern in Northern Ireland and that confidence in the system of justice has been further eroded by the fact that a criminal who was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment on 52 charges has been released after serving two years? That has confirmed in the minds of many the fact that he sold his evidence for an early release. Does the Minister agree that the exercise of the royal prerogative in that way to such a person is an insult to the person in whose name the royal prerogative is exercised?

I shall not comment, because we do not give reasons. Mr. Allen has not been released. If and when he is, he will have served substantially in excess of the two years mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

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 whether he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Since I last answered questions in the House on 1 May there have been 10 deaths in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. Six of those killed were civilians, two were police officers, one was an Army major, and one was a corporal in the UDR. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning those murders. The security forces have continued their efforts to prevent terrorist activity and to bring to justice those responsible for terrorist crimes. So far this year 264 people have been charged with serious offences, including one with murder and 17 with attempted murder. In the same period, 96 weapons, 10,600 rounds of ammunition and 1,200 lb of explosives have been recovered.

Is it not clear that, despite the Anglo-Irish agreement, the murderous campaign of the IRA continues, particularly in the frontier areas? Is it not also clear that, despite the concessions made by the United Kingdom in the agreement, there has not been a single effective and practical quid pro quo from the Dublin Government regarding security?

If my hon. Friend had heard my answer earlier, he would know that that is not true. Co-operation is increasing. There is no doubt that the IRA sees the agreement as a serious threat. There is no doubt also that it will seek, if it can, to maintain a level of violence and to try to get people such as my hon. Friend to ask such questions.

My right hon. Friend has already expressed the view that the IRA has more to fear from the Anglo-Irish agreement than has anyone else. When does he expect the crossover to come, when the IRA activity to undermine the agreement will diminish and some benefits will be seen from the agreement?

I have never understated the seriousness of the threat and the capability that the IRA maintains. That is why anyone wishing to address the issue seriously and who cares about lives in Northern Ireland does not try to turn it into an argument about the Anglo-Irish agreement, but recognises the reality of the terrorist threat, which is international in scope, and realises that we must tackle it by every weapon at our disposal, and makes quite clear our commitment to do so. I hope that I shall have the full support of hon. Members in that respect.

Has the Secretary of State been reading the items in the provincial press about the involvement of the CIA in the political situation in Northern Ireland? If not, will he ask his officials to show them to him?

I have to say that I have missed those items. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to send them to me, I shall read them with fascination.

In denouncing the IRA's crimes—I have never hesitated in so doing, and there is no reason why I should—is it not necessary to bear in mind the murders committed by paramilitaries on the other side? Is the Secretary of State aware that a Protestant women was murdered in her bed by such a gang because she had recently married a Catholic? How can those who carry out such foul murders claim that they are Unionists and part and parcel of the United Kingdom? Should they not be denounced for what they are—murderous scum?

I have no hesitation in denouncing those who are guilty of sectarian murders. I believe that I speak for every Member in the House, whatever views he or she may hold about the Union in any respect, and whatever arguments we may have, when I say that sectarian killings are utterly contemptible and have nothing to do with the honourable tradition of Unionism. Equally, the violence and murders committed by the IRA have nothing to do with the responsible constitutional tradition of Nationalism. Violent extremists are enemies of all who seek the constitutional approach.

Does my right hon. Friend regret the fact that the newly installed lord mayor of Belfast, Mr. Sammy Wilson. has pledged himself and, sadly, his office, to opposing the Anglo-Irish agreement? Does he not believe that all those who are opposed to the Anglo-Irish agreement are dancing to the terrorists' tune, whether advertently or inadvertently?

The position of the lord mayor is one that should rise above political issues of that sort. The first citizen of Belfast, above all, should genuinely give a lead towards reconciliation and better relations. I hope very much that the new incumbent will, on reflection, feel that that is the course for which he would wish to be remembered.

I say at the outset that Her Majesty's Opposition fully associate themselves with the Secretary of State's remarks in the condemnation of violence, death and destruction in Northern Ireland, whether it comes from one side or the other of the sectarian divide. We are somewhat appalled at some of the supplementary questions that the right hon. Gentleman has had to answer from Conservative Back Benchers.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those points. The House knows that I can never give facts about security to the House. So much of the work and the effective development that is taking place cannot be made public and cannot be claimed as political achievements, which might be done in other areas of political life. However, I can say that this work is going forward and that I am encouraged by the progress that is being made.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received front the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland about the Anglo-Irish agreement; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received from the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland about the Anglo-Irish agreement; and if he will make a statement.

Unionist elected representatives have regrettably not been communicating with Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office. I have, however, attended meetings with Unionist leaders in company with the Prime Minister, when they put forward their views on the agreement.

Does the Secretary of State remember that it was in 1969, against the background of a march for rights by Nationalist groupings, that the violence broke out? Is he aware that for about 50 years there has been a complete lack of democracy in Northern Ireland, where the Unionist party has tyrannised, no matter what he says about the honourable tradition of Unionism, the Nationalist groupings? Is it not time that something was done to try to ascertain whether there is any division between the Official Unionists and the hardliners of the DUP? Unless that becomes clear, it will be obvious to everyone that the Unionists want only to go back to the old Stormont and once again tyrannise the Nationalist groupings.

I reject the hon. Gentleman's comments, especially those about the tradition of Unionism. I recall the efforts of Lord O'Neill and the late Mr. Brian Faulkner to accommodate and recognise the rights of the minority as well in seeking to find a way in which there could be widespread acceptance of an Administration in Northern Ireland. I shall not comment on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Relations between political parties are matters for them.

If my right hon. Friend was persuaded that the Anglo-Irish agreement was not only an affront to the Unionist parties but a roadblock in the way of any round table talks between all the political parties in Northern Ireland, may I hope that he will show flexibility in putting the treaty to one side, as being of less importance than the setting up of an effective local administration in Northern Ireland?

My hon. Friend leads me into the terrible temptations of hypothetical questions. There is a growing recognition, shared by the leaders of all the churches in Northern Ireland, that we need talks, without preconditions, and that we must sit down and find a way forward. That is something that my hon. Friend and the House will know I have been urging for some time. I think there is a growing feeling in Northern Ireland that that is the way forward. Despite the frustrations, I hope that, at last, we will see some development in that respect.

Is not an unhappy aspect of the boycott—I use the word deliberately—the fact that the Unionist Members are absenting themselves from this place—[interruption.] Almost all of them. Would it not help immeasurably if they came to the House for Northern Ireland Questions?

We must except the presence of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who is recognised as a most assiduous attender in the House, but his presence is the exception that proves the rule. I understand that a campaign is running to try to win over hearts and minds to the Unionist cause in opposition to the Anglo-Irish agreement, but it is the only campaign I know that seems to think it will succeed by silence and abstinence.

Does the Secretary of State admit that we are seeing a new version of the Unionist veto, in that all their intransigent opposition to the Anglo-Irish agreement is blocking the progress that was promised by the agreement in real reforms to benefit the Nationalist community of the North? The Government do not dare to move down that road, because they are misbehaving so grossly about the agreement, and in that way they are achieving exactly what they wanted in the first place.

The hon. Lady knows from my earlier answers that that is incorrect. The work goes on and will continue. We have made that clear, and I reaffirm it now.

After my right hon. Friend directly interfered in the domestic politics of the United States, did he quietly reflect upon the effectiveness and usefulness of politicians in one nation state interfering in the domestic politics of another, especially in relation to the Anglo-Irish agreement?

My hon. Friends seem to have a rather liverish attitude to certain of these issues today. Although that may be my hon. Friend's view, such a comment was not made to me by any Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, who were extremely welcoming and very grateful for the opportunity to discuss the issue.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Northern Ireland Prison Officers Association; and what subjects were discussed.

In view of my day-to-day responsibility for prisons in Northern Ireland, I normally represent my right hon. Friend at meetings with the Northern Ireland Prison Officers Association. I last met National and Northern Ireland Prison Officers' Association representatives on 4 October 1985, when we discussed the future employment of prison officers and their roles; prison regime and operational matters of mutual interest; and the programme for opening Maghaberry prisons and amalgamating both prisons at Maze.

Bearing in mind the brave work of the prison officers in Northern Ireland and the sad fact that 24 of them have lost their lives in the past 10 years, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he has increased their protection and security, not just in the prisons, but round their homes, where they are under constant threat of being attacked and beaten up?

Where there is evidence of a specific threat, members of the prison service, like police officers and others, receive the full support of the police and the Northern Ireland Office in obtaining protection. I echo my hon. Friend's tribute to prison officers in Northern Ireland for the duty that they undertake on behalf of the whole community there.

Next time my hon. Friend meets the Northern Ireland Prison Officers Association, will he stress that as many of its prisoners are bomb and explosive experts, and that when they escape they may often maim, murder and strike again, they must be more vigilant than any other prison service in the United Kingdom?

The Prison Officers Association and prison officers in Northern Ireland need no lectures from me on such matters. They are fully aware of the unique nature of the prison population in Northern Ireland and the threat that prisoners could pose to peace and stability in the Province.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the criteria of the Department of Economic Development in providing Action for Community Employment funding in Northern Ireland; and, if he will make a statement.

The main criteria for ACE projects are as follows. First, the project must provide something of benefit to the community; secondly, the project sponsor must employ adults who are long-term unemployed; and, thirdly, existing jobs must not be put at risk. I am pleased to report that in Northern Ireland there are now 5,600 people employed under ACE.

While I understand the Government's obvious concern that public money should not be channelled to organisations which have links with paramilitary groups, is it not easier to make such accusations than to prove them? Will the Minister reconsider the position of four groups in Northern Ireland—Dove House, Shantallow, the Top of the Hill Tenants Association and Conway Street Mill in Belfast—where 47 jobs have so far been lost, to see whether they could not be deemed to be eligible for continuing public support?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the matter, and it is shared by other hon. Members. We have had considerable correspondence, especially on one of the four groups that he mentioned. Only 1 per cent. of people who apply for ACE schemes are rejected on security grounds. It is extremely difficult to make that decision. On the other hand, the previous Secretary of State made it clear in a written answer on 27 June 1985 that such payments must be carefully watched. Otherwise, there is a grave risk of directly or indirectly improving the standing and furthering the aims of paramilitary organisations which would obviously be against the public interest.

My hon. Friend will know that one aspect of the Anglo-Irish agreement was of America giving the United Kingdom money, whether we wanted it or not. Has any of that money been channelled through this organisation for economic development? If so, how much has been spent? If not, what channel is being used, how much of this year's £50 million has been received, and how many jobs have been created?

None of that money has been spent along the lines suggested. Indeed, the suggestion of money is still, as it were, bogged down in the Senate. We would welcome any international fund or help, particularly where there were no limitations on the way in which the money could be spent.

The Minister will be aware of my detailed correspondence with him about one organisation mentioned by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). Is he aware of the public invitation by Dove House for anyone sent by the Minister to carry out the most thorough investigation into its activities? Does he agree that that is a reasonable offer, and that in those circumstances he should review its case and send someone to investigate what it is doing?

The Secretary of State and I are prepared to review cases at any time, but we must be sure that there is no threat of money going to paramilitary organisations. There is no closed door at any time on these issues.

Is the Minister aware that, because of a developing social security paranoia in the north of Ireland, almost every golf and rugby club is being improved through the ACE scheme, and that the socially deprived areas, where the money is most needed, are at greatest risk because that is where the paranoia is having its effect? Does he agree that that is extremely dangerous?

I am not entirely clear about the hon. Gentleman's point, but obviously I will talk to him about it. After the results this week of British teams in the World Cup, perhaps we can help their facilities at the same time.

May I beg the Minister to consider whether it is possible that he is wrong about this? Does he accept that some of us have looked closely at the groups enumerated by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), and that, if we had found any evidence to suggest that any of them was a front for criminal activities, we would not be pursuing this matter? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that Bishop Daly has endorsed our conclusions? For the sake of these desperately deprived communities, will the hon. Gentleman consider the suggestion of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), which was to appoint an independent investigator, or does he prefer to be suspected of doing what the Government did in England to community groups in the areas of the GLC and the metropolitan counties?

As I have already said, only seven out of between 600 and 700 groups have had money withheld. The money was withheld because we received advice that they were a security risk. Withholding that money is not an attempt to deprive people of money in poor areas. Indeed, the other 600 to 700 groups exist largely in such areas.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 June.

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, including one with the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

I applaud the Prime Minister's championship of family life, to which Labour party elements in London show such hostility, but will she turn her attention urgently to another aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic, and follow her support of the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, introduced by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), by ensuring that there is legislation to outlaw experiments on embryonic human beings?

My hon. Friend is correct to say that that Bill is a matter of great public interest and that it found much support on both sides of the House, but, as he will know, many different views have been expressed, and before the Government could introduce any legislation they would have to take into account the many differing views.

With reference to the Prime Minister's speech yesterday to the Conservative women's conference, is she aware that the theories that she expounded then on how to reduce unemployment have been implemented by her for the past seven years? What makes the right hon. Lady think that they will be any more successful in future than they have been so far?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, in the past three years almost 1 million new jobs have been created—(Interruption.] That would seem to mean that we are going in the right direction.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 June.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the 1971 and 1981 immigration Acts are not racially discriminatory, that the Government have no plans to repeal them, and that to do so would increase unemployment and lead to difficulties that do not now exist between different groups in this country? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the plans of the Leader of the Opposition would achieve just that?

I confirm that it is our intention to maintain both the Immigration Act 1971, with its immigration controls, and the British Nationality Act 1981. Any reduction of the controls on immigration into this country would be highly damaging to good race relations.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to say how much the Government expect to raise in value added tax from the widely acclaimed activities of Sport Aid? Is she aware that every penny of the money raised is intended for Africa's poor, not for the Treasury? Why can she not make a matching payment to compensate the charity for the amount that it will have to pay in VAT?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, this matter comes up from time to time and came up under previous Governments. No Government have been able to exempt all charities from VAT. By way of tax relief, this Government have done more than any other to help the funds of charities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strength of feeling that exists in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) about the activities of so-called hippies who show contempt for every aspect of organised society, except the social security office? Does she agree that the present law is inadequate to cope with this threat, and will she undertake to draft legislation to make it possible for people to clear land that is being occupied by these travelling gangs?

As I and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have said, if the present law is inadeqate, we will have to introduce fresh law. In many cases, the present law is adequate. The problem is how to deal with people who accept all the advantages and benefits of a free society but refuse to rise to their responsibilities. We shall have to look afresh at this whole question.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 June.

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

When the Prime Minister got carried away yesterday with her own empty rhetoric about her vision of a little bit of heaven on earth for everybody, did she forget that we have over 4 million people unemployed, that over 7 million people are living at the official poverty level, that over 1·5 million people are waiting for houses, and that over 750,000 people are waiting to go into hospital? Will the Prime Minister return to the real world and realise that instead of a heaven on earth in Britain today, the reality of Thatcherism is a living hell?

The phrase "heaven on earth" came from Mrs. Eleanor Bonner when she was contrasting life in a free society, which is heaven on earth, with life in the Socialist society of Soviet Russia, from which she came. She found that heaven on earth was being able to own one's own home and get operations in the West which she could not get in the Soviet Union.

Bearing in mind the widespread reports that my right hon. Friend was highly impressed by the recent "Panorama" programme about workfare schemes in the United States, will she now set up a pilot workfare scheme with a view to a nation-wide workfare scheme for all able-bodied and long-term unemployed? Does she realise that such a scheme would make life difficult for hippy convoys, would make it difficult for those foreign visitors who can claim £78 a week as soon as they report into a hotel in Britain, and would generally stop abuse of the welfare system?

I know how keen my hon. Friend is on that. We are looking into the way in which workfare operates in the United States. We are finding that some of the things that we have, such as the community programme and jobstart, would rank as workfare schemes in the United States. As my hon. Friend knows, some of those schemes are being extended. I am only too delighted to do anything I can to make life difficult for such things as hippy convoys.

On reflection, does the Prime Minister not think that she was wrong to use the words of a very courageous woman, Mrs. Bonner, for the partisan purposes for which she sought to use them yesterday? Does she recall saying that her policy starts with the family, its freedom and well-being? Is there not a huge inconsistency between those words and her deeds over seven years of government, which have inflicted unemployment on an extra 2 million people, poverty on an extra 4 million people and bad housing and inadequate education on millions more? What about their freedom and their well-being, or does she not think that they belong to families?

Mrs. Bonner used those words in contrasting the benefits of a free society with the benefits of a Socialist society of the kind in which Mrs. Bonner lives. Housing is much better under this Government than it was under Labour; so are the health services; so is the standard of living. That is the right hon. Gentleman's problem. We are doing far better than his Government did.

The Prime Minister compounds her dishonesty and only demonstrates—[Interruption.]

Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman please rephrase that question?

The right hon. Lady compounds the distorted use of words when she gives the impression that there are only two alternatives in this world—the Soviet society and her society—although she knows perfectly well that there are decent democratic alternatives to both kinds of society. If the Prime Minister really believes that housing is better under the Conservatives, how does she explain the worst record for housing starts in this country at any time since before the second world war?

On housing, 1·3 million new homes have been built in Great Britain since 1979; 900,000 public sector council houses and flats have been sold to their tenants; home ownership is up to 62 per cent.; and 55 per cent. of blue collar workers own their homes, compared with 40 per cent. in 1979 under the Labour Government.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the answer that she gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) is not as satisfactory as some of us would like? Will she give a positive assurance to the farming community that the Government will ensure that by this time next year there is legislation to make certain that innocent people cannot have their lives ruined, that the farming community cannot lose out, and that in fact positive steps will be taken to ensure that vagrant hippies cannot invade in the way that they have invaded during the past few months?

I make it perfectly clear to my hon. Friend the if fresh legislation on criminal trespass is needed to deter hippies, it will be introduced.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 June.

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

When the Prime Minister said yesterday that it was no coincidence that the countries with lower taxes produce more jobs and have lower unemployment, was she deluding herself or just the gullible ladies of the Conservative women's conference? Is she not aware that Turkey has the lowest tax take of any OECD country, but unemployment as high as ours, and that of 10 countries with higher tax takes than ours, nine have lower levels of unemployment? Is not the real lesson from these international figures that sensible public spending produces jobs, while her policies destroy jobs?

The hon. Gentleman is speaking nonsense. As he knows full well, there are far more jobs and there is far less unemployment in the United States, where personal taxation is a great deal lower and where a Bill that is now before the equivalent of this Chamber in the United States is proposing to make the top tax limit in the United States below the bottom tax limit here. Also, he knows full well that Japan and Switzerland, which have much lower personal taxation than we have here, have far more jobs and far less unemployment. The fact is that the Labour party likes high taxation. The right hon. Gentleman likes to have his hands in the pockets of the people.

On the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), does my right hon. Friend agree that if the proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition in India to change the immigration laws went through, that would increase immigration from the Indian subcontinent and be against the wishes of the vast majority in this country?

Yes. I believe that to say anything that would effect a reduction in immigration controls would have a very bad effect on race relations in this country. I believe that to say that certain Acts would be repealed without saying what would be put in their place is thoroughly irresponsible.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 June.

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

Who from America advised the Prime Minister that the F111s were more accurate than the carrier-based aircraft?

As I said the last time I answered questions, we received advice from the United States and from this country to that effect. — [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] That is not for me to reveal.