asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Anglo-Irish Agreement during the summer Adjournment.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was discussed at the latest meeting held under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

During the parliamentary recess we have had one special meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference, and one regular meeting. I have placed in the Library the statements issued after each meeting. We are making progress with the better co-ordination of security cooperation, and on a range of items falling within the ambit of the conference. At the last meeting particular items included human rights, equality of opportunity in employment, economic and transport issues and the international fund.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are large numbers of people on this side of the water, including in this sovereign Parliament, who wish the Anglo-Irish Agreement well and who do not regard themselves as puppets of the Americans, stooges or brainwashed collaborators in trying to proceed along the road of inter-communal reconciliation.

I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend. I believe that the continuing evidence of the operation of the conference shows that there is scope for closer co-operation and that there are benefits to be gained from the objectives of the agreement, such as the reassurance of the majority community, and the reassurance of the minority, community of their rights within the Province. I make that absolutely clear. That has always been my position. That is our objective, and I believe that it is an objective that all people of good will should share.

Is it not time that we saw some real economic improvements in Northern Ireland? Perhaps the Secretary of State will recognise the abysmal economic situation. Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the latest victims of the sectarian murders was Mr. Raymond Mooney, a young man who left behind four children? He was an active member of my union, and he was slaughtered as he came down the hall of the church where he was an active social and welfare worker. Is that not yet another illustration of the sectarian murders being carried out by gangs on both sides? Is the Secretary of State aware that on Saturday there is a trade union conference in Belfast to deal with all forms of intimidation and sectarianism? Does he wish that conference well?

I answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question with an unequivocal yes. I certainly strongly applaud the initiative of the trade unions in seeking to give a lead against sectarian intimidation and violence, from whichever quarter it may come. I hope that the whole House will join me in deploring any incidents of sectarian violence, of which, sadly, there have been far too many in recent months, and also any speeches that may tend to incite what is obviously a serious and charged situation and which all too easily can result in sectarian outrages from both sides of the community.

On the economic front, obviously such acts are a crime against the whole community in the Province if they in any way discourage employment. However, there is encouraging news of new investments in the Province, including an anouncement last week by a Japanese company of inward investment to set up a new operation. It is the second Japanese investment in the Province. That is coupled with other substantial investments in existing plants. That is an encouraging side of the picture that is not always so widely reported.

With only three weeks to go to the anniversary of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, is not the reality of the summer months that the backlash against that agreement still continues to claim lives and that the sectarian tensions continue and do not diminsh? Is it not far more hopeful that 4,000 Department of Health and Social Security workers went on strike a few weeks ago — a united strike of Catholic and Protestant workers against intimidation — and that on Saturday the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is organising a conference to unite workers? Are they not far more hopeful signs than the Anglo-Irish Agreement that workers can be united in the North against all sectarian and paramilitary groups operating in the area?

I applaud the way in which workers, including those in the DHSS, have refused to be intimidated by paramilitary groups and have stood against intimidation from whichever extreme it might come. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is based on exactly the twin pillars I referred to: to reassure the majority of the community of the security of their position based on the principle of consent, and to reassure the minority of their absolute entitlement to equality of treatment in Northern Ireland. It is that basis which offers the best hope for the people to come together against sectarian hatreds and terrorist violence which seek to divide the communities.

Does my right hon. Friend not understand that many of us feel that the sectarian murders and the intimidation, about which two Opposition Members have spoken, are the consequence of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? As my right hon. Friend has spoken, as Irish Ministers have spoken, of benefits to follow, how long will we have to wait for those benefits?

My hon. Friend knows better than anybody the history of violence in Ireland. The suggestion that sectarian killings have started since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement ignores the fact that these have tragically defaced the face of Ireland for far too long. It does not do my hon. Friend credit, in view of the respect that I have for him and for his knowledge, for example, of the security situation, for him to suggest that there can be an overnight or instant improvement. He knows, and his knowledge makes it unavoidable for him to recognise this, that it will take time to get improvements in cooperation and trust between the security forces in the North and the South if we are to get that genuine improvement in security.

What does the Secretary of State regard as the prospect for the European convention against terrorism, the ratification of which was one of the promises that accompanied the making of the agreement?

A debate is taking place in the Dail, the outcome of which will be significant in terms of the further progress of that ratification. I very much hope that it will go forward shortly and that we get it established. The Taoiseach and the Irish Government have made clear their commitment to do just that.

Do the Government accept that the Anglo-Irish Agreement will automatically lapse on the election of a new Government in Ireland unless that Government positively accept the agreement?

My hon. Friend is absolutely plumb wrong. I do not know from where he gets that idea, but the agreement stands, and it is binding on successive Irish Governments, as it is binding on successive British Governments, until and unless such time as, after review, any changes might be made. My hon. Friend may have better lawyers than I have, but my advice is the opposite to the view that he appears to hold.

I am reluctant to draw conclusions from the unfortunate deaths of people in Northern Ireland, but I feel it necessary, in the light of the previous question, to ask the Secretary of State to confirm that there have been 56 fatalities as a result of paramilitary activities in the year subsequent to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, compared to 216 in the year subsequent to the signing of the Sunningdale agreement. Will he further confirm that of the 37 people who were not members of the security forces or the Provisional IRA who were killed in that period, the majority were killed by Loyalist paramilitary groupings and that their deaths had no border connection whatsoever?

I can confirm those figures. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that they are tragically high and that the House will share that view. The reality is, sadly, that the number of deaths in Northern Ireland can often be almost an accident on the margin. In other words, some incidents that could be serious and lead to a serious loss of life can sometimes be prevented. By itself, that is not necessarily the sole indicator of the level of violence.

I take a serious view of, and do not underrate, the problem. I accept that the level of violence is higher than it was last year, but I recognise that this is part of the determined efforts by the two parts of the community deliberately to seek to exploit the situation. I am under no illusion but that the IRA is deliberately enhancing its campaign of violence because it fears the agreement and is seeking to excite Loyalist opposition, and the Loyalist extremists are themselves guilty of a number of serious crimes.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a growing sense of despair and frustration among many ordinary and decent Unionists at the intransigence of their elected representatives? Will he clearly warn those people who are toying with the prospect of putting the bully boys on to the streets of Belfast on the anniversary of the Hillsborough agreement that they will be worthy only of the contempt of the people whom they claim to represent?

I share the real concern felt about some of the methods of opposition exercised by some people in their hostility to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I have made clear my support and belief in the Union. I believe that the Union is made more secure by the recognition of the principle of consent, that the Union cannot be affected against the wishes of a majority in Northern Ireland, and that that is accepted in the Republic as well as in the United Kingdom. My worry about the tactics being employed by some is that the threat to the Union will come more from the misguided antics of some who call themselves Loyalists than from any possible implied threat from the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

What evidence does the Secretary of State have that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is gaining greater acceptance among the people of Northern Ireland?

I recognise that the agreement has not obviously commanded acceptance or enthusiasm among the majority community. However, the minority community recognises the determined effort which is being made, which was part of the purpose of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to ensure that their rights and entitlements are recognised and appreciated and that there is a proper opportunity for their views to be heard. That is understood and appreciated. I accept that there is a need for a much better understanding with the Unionist community about the merits and advantages which can flow for it out of the agreement. The present difficulty is that we cannot seek to examine the fears and concerns of people who are not prepared to talk and who are not—with one exception —even prepared to debate the issues in this sovereign Chamber of the United Kingdom.

With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), does he agree that the best way to fulfil the expectations of those who welcomed the agreement because they thought it would provide redress for some of their problems, and to allay the fears of those who see the agreement as sinister, would be to demonstrate that the agreement is intended to make practical contributions to bread and butter issues? People have to eat, whatever their sectarian affiliations. Should not sensible ideas for economic co-operation now be appearing?

I am certainly anxious to see how, in a number of areas, we can develop such matters. For example, the hon. Gentleman will note that I referred to economic and transport issues. Transport costs is an issue which is common to the whole of the island of Ireland in terms of being competitive in world markets. There must be an efficient transport system across the Irish sea. Developments in this and other areas are being closely examined at present. We are considering both sea and air links.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in the United States of America resulting from his discussions there concerning extradition of Irish Republican Army suspects wanted by the police in the United Kingdom.

On 17 July the United States Senate approved the United States-United Kingdom supplementary extradition treaty by an overwhelming majority. This is an important step forward in our mutual fight against the evils of terrorism. Orders to enable the supplementary treaty to be ratified will shortly be brought before the House.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a matter for congratulation for the Administrations on both sides of the Atlantic? Is this success not epitomised by the extradition to this country of William Quinn? Can my hon. Friend confirm that this is the first time that a terrorist suspect has been extradited to this country? Will my hon. Friend please make sure that good care is taken of the documentation and administration so that the police work on both sides of the Atlantic is not frustrated?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he sought in the last part of his question. I am sure that the House will welcome the vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and in the full Senate, where the treaty attracted widespread and bipartisan support. The House should recognise that the passage of the supplementary treaty demonstrates the value of the very closest bilateral and multilateral co-operation in the fight against terrorism. I welcome the fact that that is going beyond the transatlantic concept. Wider co-operation will improve everyone's chances of defeating terrorism in the long run.

Does my hon. Friend welcome the cooperation of the Dutch authorities in their moves towards the extradition of MacFarland and Kelly, the two prisoners who excaped from the Maze prison?

The whole House will welcome the decision of the Dutch courts. The judgment is complex and we are studying it very carefully. Co-operation with the Dutch authorities in this matter has been excellent, and they have made a considerable contribution towards improving international co-operation against terrorism.

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

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

Since I last answered questions in the House on 3 July, 16 civilians and nine members of the security forces have died in incidents arising from the security situation. But for the courage and dedication of members of the security forces, and the public-spirited actions of a number of civilians, these tragic totals would have been even greater.

The unstinting efforts of the security forces continue to achieve results. So far this year 521 people have been charged with serious offences and 170 weapons, 15,700 rounds of ammunition, and 3,400 lb of explosives have been recovered.

As co-chairman of the Anglo-Irish Conference, will my right hon. Friend say whether there is any validity in Dr. FitzGerald's claim that evidence to have been given against alleged terrorists by Angela Whorisky was withdrawn by the Director of Public Prosecutions because of representations that Dr. FitzGerald had made in the Anglo-Irish Conference? Will he confirm that Angela Whorisky did not herself withdraw any evidence and that the Irish Republic has now been given the right to interfere in the judicial proceedings of Northern Ireland?

In response to my hon. Friend's last point, of course not. Certainly no Irish Minister or the Taoiseach would dream of claiming any such thing. Any individual case is a matter for the Law Officers and the prosecuting authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has issued a statement in this connection.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the figures that his Department gave me about increases in violence arising in the 11 months after the signing of the Anglo-Irish accord compared with the figures for violence in the 12 months before the Anglo-Irish accord show that, apart from injuries, there has been no real significant increase and that there has been a marked decrease in the number of shootings and bombings? Therefore, in spite of the hysteria from the extreme Provisionals and the extreme Unionists, one is able to say that there has been no real material worsening of the security position as a result of the accord and that there has been a marked improvement in respect of the finding of bombs, caches and so on.

As is well known, the figure for killings is about the same this year as it was for the whole of last year, but, against that, it is very much lower than some years ago. I take no comfort from that, because I know that the whole House will share my view that the figures are far too high. The hon. Gentleman is right about the success of the security forces. The House may be aware of the recovery of some very dangerous weapons indeed only in recent days. There has also been success in recovering a certain amount of explosives and weapons.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the big increase in violence since the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been in the number of sectarian assassinations by Loyalist paramilitaries? On the general security situation, what information is he willing to share with us about links between elected Loyalist politicians who are represented in this House and those paramilitary organisations? For example, at the Bingham funeral of a man who was buried with full UVF paraphernalia on his coffin, members of the Democratic Unionist party had called at his house and openly shown support for that kind of paramilitary activity. When will the right hon. Gentleman denounce that as even handedly as he denounces Sinn Fein politicians?

I have done that on a number of occasions. The hon. Lady is fair and she will know that on previous occasions I have deplored the fact that there are any hon. Members in this House who have any association whatsoever with paramilitary activities. I have made that absolutely clear. The House will be aware that there have been a number of serious incidents, including a number of serious paramilitary incidents and incitement to sectarian violence. Although there has been such an increase, there is no question but that the IRA views the Anglo-Irish Agreement as a great threat to its activities. The cooperation of the British and Irish Governments in this connection is a threat to the IRA. There is no doubt that it is seeking to escalate violence and to destroy the agreement. Some people try to oppose the agreement because they do not understand what it means. The IRA is seeking to oppose the agreement because it understands all too well what it means.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the policing of marches in the Province during the summer months.

I am sure the whole House will recognise that the Royal Ulster Constabulary's skilful and highly professional handling of the very large number of marches during what was undoubtedly a tense period in the Province proved very successful. I am sure the House would wish to congratulate it on its efforts, which, coupled with the restraint and good sense of the overwhelming majority of the community, ensured that almost all parades passed off without serious incident.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position. Although I recognise that there is a need for a large number of these marches, I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that there has been a tremendous strain on the police forces throughout the summer. They have not been helped by the "Troops out of Northern Ireland" group campaigning in this country, and Sinn Fein councillors, both in Northern Ireland and in some areas of Britain, doing their best to undermine what is happening.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the police need everyone's support? There should be far better cooperation over the arrangements for future marches. The number of marches should he limited to ensure that the Province is adequately policed throughout the summer and in other months.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I agree very much with the thrust of his questions. We ought to bear in mind that rather more than 2,000 parades took place in Northern Ireland during the marching season, and that only 70 resulted in any sort of disorder. I very much agree that the need to police these parades, especially when there is a threat of violence, diverts police resources from their main task of maintaining law and order and their continuing battle against terrorism. I urge everyone to co-operate as fully as possible with the police in these matters.

Does the Minister agree that the job of policing such sensitively and provocatively routed marches into Catholic areas as took place in Portadown in July would be eased if the RUC's responsible approach to the parade had been matched by that of the organisers? Some of the Unionist Members who normally sit on the Bench to my left, notably the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) publicly endorsed at that time a well-known troublemaker, Mr. Seawright, who believes that all Catholics should be incinerated, even though the RUC felt obliged to ban him from that parade.

It is incumbent upon everyone in Northern Ireland involved in these types of parades to co-operate fully with the police. I hope that we can move towards a situation in Northern Ireland where it is accepted that people do not march in areas where they are not welcome. That is a principle we should seek to establish. It would also be helpful to the police if those who organise Republican marches in Northern Ireland would give proper notice of them and co-operate with the police.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with representatives of policial parties in Northen Ireland concerning the form and progress of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have met the leaders of the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party for that purpose on a number of occasions. As I have repeatedly said, we should like to have discussions with representatives of Unionist parties too, but unfortunately they have not yet felt able to do so.

In answer to an earlier question the Secretary of State spoke of progress on human rights being made under the agreement with the Irish Government. Has he thought it right to put forward the proposals of the Official Unionists that there should be a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland, or the proposal of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights that the European convention on human rights should be incorporated into the law of the land to give a remedy in our courts?

We have made it clear that we see real difficulties about a Bill of Rights, because inevitably it would involve the whole of the United Kingdom, with all the problems that that might entail, and the connected issues, which have often been debated. At the most recent conference we said that it might be helpful to have a joint declaration on human righs, which might be an affirmation by both Governments. The matter is being studied at present.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the text of the speech made by Mr. Charles Haughey at Bodenstown on the 12th of this month, in which he said that in the 12 months since the Anglo-Irish Agreement had been signed the position of Nationalists in the North had seriously worsened? In the discussions to which my right hon. Friend has just referred, have any representations of the sort made by Mr. Charles Haughey been made by the SDLP and other parties in the North?

No, Sir. I have seen Mr. Charles Haughey's comments as well as the comments of many Nationalists, who clearly do not share that view.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that no self-respecting Member of this House would accept a situation in which the representation of the rights and interests of a section of his constituents is vested by international treaty in a foreign power?

That is simply not true, if I may say so to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I would have expected to be more accurate in the matter. To imply that those rights and interests are vested without the opportunity to put forward views, something which in no way deprives others of the opportunity to put forward views — as if the rights had been permanently transferred — is total distortion and an incorrect interpretation of that agreement.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in the event of a change of Government in the Republic, the Anglo-Irish Agreement could be renegotiated and, if so, whether in that process all the political parties in the North could be included in the negotiation?

The agreement itself provides for the opportunity for review, which would be after three years, or earlier at the request of either party. Obviously any review would be conducted between Governments, but, as I have made clear, I would envisage the opportunity to be there for anybody who wished to do so to put forward any views that he liked. That opportunity exists now, and I am sorry that the Unionist party has not felt able to take advantage of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will next be meeting the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to discuss security matters.

I have regular meetings with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland to discuss policy issues of common concern in the security field. It is not my practice to give details of the timing of those meetings.

Can the Secretary of State inform the House whether at those meetings he discussed with the Chief Constable the orders given to special branches of the RUC about a shoot-to-kill policy in border areas, orders given to members of the RUC to lie at public trials, orders given to members of the RUC to make incursions into the territory of the Republic of Ireland, or the decision of the Chief Constable to refuse to give Mr. Stalker either the tape or transcript of the tape of what took place in the shootings in that barn? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that even though criminal actions may be brought against individuals on that matter, it does not exonerate the Government from coming to the House and giving a full, frank statement of all that occurred when those matters are outwith particular circumstances in Northern Ireland but concern the rule of law in the whole kingdom?

The hon. Member asks me about meetings with the Chief Constable. There is a specific question on the Order Paper relating to the Sampson-Stalker report, which will be dealt with shortly.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, will he take the opportunity to look at the files on security in past years with a view to gaining information for the future with particular reference to the comments that have been attributed to the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) in respect of the assassination of Airey Neave and the right hon. Gentleman's comment that outside forces were perhaps responsible for that assassination?

The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) will have to answer for his own statements. All I would say is that I know that this is not the first time that he has sought to advance this particular conspiracy theory.

When the Secretary of State next meets the Chief Constable, will he update him on the work that is being done both in his Department and in the Home Department relating to the availability of kidnap insurance? Inquiries are taking place, but what has happened during the parliamentary recess? We were told that some initiative would he taken this year. Where are we in the debate?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I should be grateful if he would address his question to my right hon. Friend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual fairness, agree that the Opposition have been at pains throughout the Stalker episode not to overdramatise it? But has there not been an accumulation in responsible newspapers of allegations which, if they are true, cannot be condoned by the authorities of a civilised country and which, if they are false, ought to be laid to rest? In view of the call from the National Council for Civil Liberties and Amnesty International for a full inquiry, is it not clear that to ignore the situation will not make it go away? Until the poison is removed, must it not continue to fester?

In view of the seriousness of the point that has been raised, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House will forgive me if I give perhaps a rather fuller reply to the question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

I am informed that the first part of the report of the inquiry that was begun by Mr. Stalker and completed by Mr. Sampson was submitted by the latter to the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary yesterday. The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland has also received a copy. I understand that this part of the report covers the incident on 24 November 1982 in which Mr. Michael Tighe was shot dead. Also, I understand that Mr. Sampson hopes to submit as soon as possible a second part, which will address the associated issues connected with all the cases that are under investigation. As is the usual practice with police reports covering criminal investigations, it will not be published. On the basis of Mr. Sampson's report, along with any comments from the Chief Constable, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland will decide what directions to give as to criminal proceedings.

The Attorney-General has requested the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to inform him fully with regard to the facts reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to consult the Attorney-General before any directions are given. An additional section of Mr. Sampson's report will deal with matters concerning the management of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

I propose to make a statement to the House on these aspects at the earliest opportunity. It will, however, be understood that I have no role in the conduct of criminal proceedings, nor would it be appropriate for any comments to be made upon the individual investigations involved until all such proceedings are completed.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that when the three incidents took place, which are now known as the shoot-to-kill incidents that were investigated by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson, the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland was absent from Northern Ireland during two of those incidents, although the situation was very tense, and that during all three incidents the head of the CID in Northern Ireland was absent from Northern Ireland? Will the Secretary of State inform the House of where the ultimate responsibility lies when something goes terribly wrong in a police service that is under a cloud of conspiracy such as this?

The House will know, as I sought to make clear in my earlier reply, that I cannot comment on the criminal or disciplinary aspects of this inquiry. I have made it clear to the House that the first section of Mr. Sampson's report was delivered yesterday to the Chief Constable, with a copy to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. That is the first step. I have also made clear the action that I will seek to take to keep the House informed on these matters of public interest.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current status of funding of community groups previously funded by the Belfast city council; and if he will make a statement.

Action by a Government-appointed commissioner on 8 October released city council funds to community groups in Belfast for the rest of the current financial year. I regret that this action became necessary as a result of the non-cooperative attitude of a majority of the Unionist councillors on Belfast city council.

Is it not a fact that there are about 40 of those voluntary community groups and that the Government knew in advance that the Unionists would refuse to service people because of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and that people are losing their jobs in those groups? Is it not a fact also that the Government knew well in advance that the money had run out, yet they were tardy in giving money to those groups? May we have an assurance that that will not occur again?

No, I could not accept that. The responsibility for funding such groups remains with the Belfast city council. Therefore, the Government could not act until it became clear, after the end of September, that the council was not going to act. I can confirm that the action of the Commission on Housing has involved authorising running costs for 41 groups involving grants totalling £395,815.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 October.

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. Following Questions in the House I shall be going to sign the book of condolence opened for President Machel of Mozambique.

Will my right hon. Friend find time to reaffirm her Government's commitment to abhorring violence in Northern Ireland and to condemn the action of three local authorities in London which have entertained Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, this week—Haringey on Monday, Lambeth on Tuesday and Hackney last night, all of which, needless to say, are Labour-controlled local authorities?

We utterly condemn violence in Northern Ireland and do everything we can do to eradicate it. I join my hon. Friend in completely deploring invitations to any organisation which supports or perpetrates violence and therefore gives a platform to those who advocate violence. We think that that is completely wrong, and I agree with my hon. Friend.

I firmly associate myself with the view that the Prime Minister expressed concerning violence in pursuit of all ends, including political ends, and say that those who have the immense dishonesty to fight with a ballot box in one hand and a rifle in the other have no place in democratic politics.

While this month's balance of payments statistics show some welcome improvement on last month's disastrous figures, they still reveal that we have been in deficit this year for the first time since we started to receive oil money, and they further record manufacturing trade figures that are the worst in all history. Does the Prime Minister really think that she can combat that grave position by raising interest rates, raising industrial costs and increasing home payments, since that appears to be the only economic policy she has?

Certainly the balance of trade figures published today are better than those for last month. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that exports have risen, which is good. One of the problems of securing a good balance of payments, especially on current account, is that of keeping unit costs down. The biggest aggravating factor for unit costs is unit wage costs, which, in this country, are rising faster than elsewhere. That is a matter to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman and the trade unions will give their attention and not seek to get more out in wages than is put in in productivity.

Is the Prime Minister announcing her intention to establish some form of incomes control policy, contrary to everything that she has ever said, or will she concentrate on the basic causes of our loss of 27 per cent. in competitiveness over the past seven years, which have been the restrictions on demand and the massive costs that she has imposed on industry by a permanent policy of high interest rates?

How does the right hon. Gentleman explain the first part of his question when he then says that there are restrictions on demand? There are greatly increased imports because there are no restrictions on imports.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 October.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the rate support grant settlement is such that those local authorities which manage their affairs prudently will be able to keep any rate increases low? Will she also join me in welcoming the fact that the Labour party has just lost control of Basildon district council because of the resignation of Labour councillors concerned about imprudent spending and the political posturing of local authorities such as Brent, Haringey, Hackney and Lambeth?

As my hon. Friend knows, this year's rate support grant settlement is generous and he will be well aware that the Local Authority Audit Commission has given examples of ways of making local authorities much more efficient. I congratulate Basildon on what has happened and I am sure that it will be beneficial to all ratepayers.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's own report — [Interruption] — to the regional development commissioner of the European Commission stated clearly that the prospects for reducing unemployment were "frighteningly bleak"? In view of that, how can she continue to announce cuts in railway, local authority and housing expenditure in the very areas of the country which the report ackowledges need extra help?

With regard to the figures in the European regional development fund application, the unemployment totals on which the report is based are taken from the 1986 public expenditure White Paper. They are assumptions, not forecasts or predictions, and they follow the same practice as that adopted by the Labour Government. Figures for the individual regions assume that the existing regional pattern of unemployment continues. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government's record on infrastructure expenditure is far better than that of the Government whom he supported.

Will the Prime Minister explain the Government's monetary policy? The City of London does not understand it, financial commentators do not understand it and now even the Governor of the Bank of England does not seem to understand it. Will she explain it?

If the right hon. Gentleman will give me longer than I have at Question Time, I will do so gladly. I do not think that other people are as ignorant as he seems to think. The monetary policy is to keep downward pressure on inflation. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that inflation is far lower than any level that his Government ever managed to achieve.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 October.

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

Following my right hon. Friend's successful visit to Barrow and Furness in September, where she laid down the keel for the new submarine for Trident, can she reaffirm the Government's commitment to a nuclear defence policy with Trident as its base? Would she care to comment on the fact that no amount of games down on the farm with Roget's Thesaurus can remedy a weak and discredited alliance policy?

I reaffirm our independent nuclear deterrent policy and that Trident will come into operation. The first submarine is now being built at Vickers yard in Barrow and Furness. I agree with my hon. Friend about the policies of certain other parties. I do not believe that the British people will take seriously a political party which, on a subject as important as the British deterrent, claims that it is committed to maintaining it, but cannot agree on how to do so.

Can the Prime Minister tell us, in relation to her earlier answer on the regional report to the EEC, what precisely is the difference between an assumption and a forecast or prediction?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the public expenditure surveys he will see that we never make forecasts for successive years. We do the best that we can with the immediately following year and then, in the years after that, the present figure automatically continues. That has been the practice and it was first announced in 1978 by the Government whom the hon. Member supported.

Will my right hon. friend seek an opportunity, today if possible, to see the remarkably moving and accurate film "Cry Hungary" which the BBC screened last night? Is this not an appropriate moment to remind people throughout the free world that no country under the domination of the Soviet Union has had the opportunity to opt even for neutrality?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, We should all recall that, I believe, 30 years ago today, the Soviet tanks rolled in and crushed the attempts of the Hungarian people to gain for themselves some greater freedom. I hope that we shall remember it vividly, be grateful for our liberty and be determined to defend it, as this Government are.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 October.

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

The right hon. Lady will appreciate that one of the factors causing a deficit in our balance of payments is Britain's loss in trade in terms of shipping. In 1979, when the right hon. Lady became Prime Minister, we had 1,200 vessels, and now we are down to about 600. At that time we had 80,000 seafaring jobs and now we are down to 40,000. Will the right hon. Lady now tell us what she and her Government will do about that?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that one of the problems with shipbuilding the world over is that every country has given shipbuilding so many subsidies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shipping."] I will come on to shipping. There have been so many subsidies that there are now two years' supplies of ships swinging on the buoys. With regard to shipping, one of the problems is that the National Union of Seamen has priced itself out of the market— [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen always react in the same way to the truth. The NUS has priced itself out of employment. Consequently, the work has gone elsewhere, and that is a tragedy, I agree. The remedy lies in its hands.

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern for my constituent, Miss Maureen McGoldrick, and the children in her care in a Brent school? The governors of the school have found her totally innocent of accusations of racism, as has the High Court, yet Brent Labour council insists on persecuting her, to the great detriment of her school, the children and their parents.

My hon. Friend makes his point effectively. I believe I am right in saying that an appeal has been entered and, therefore, I am circumscribed in what I can say.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 October.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago and have given several times since.

Does the Prime Minister recall that when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science she made a series of speeches in favour of nursery education? For almost 10 years after that nursery education in Britain was steadily expanded. It now appears that the Government have abandoned all plans to improve Britain's nursery education. What steps will she take to discuss with Ministers with responsibility for education ways in which we can try to achieve the same sort of nursery provision as the French?

I am so pleased that the hon. Gentleman managed to get his question in. I am very keen on nursery education. Since January 1979 the proportion of three and four-year-olds at school has increased from 37 to 43 per cent. in January 1986.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the Labour party's new booklet about public investment? It is on sale at some newsagents, but, not surprisingly, it has failed to make the bestseller list—

Order. The Prime Minister can only reply to questions for which she has responsibility.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party — [Interruption.] — is as bereft of sound financial policies in 1986 as it was in 1976?

Yes, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that our merchant fleet has shrunk because, unlike the British Government, which is indifferent, our competitors assist their merchant navies? If the right hon. Lady is not aware of the consequences for trade and industry, will she at least bear in mind what will happen to the defence of this country if our Merchant Navy is not given assistance?

Obviously we are considering that very carefully, but the main problem is that the National Union of Seamen has demanded salaries and restrictive practices that have priced its members out of British shipping. That is very damaging for our shipping.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which arises out of questions.

I will hear it after the private notice question.