To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to legislate on the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights report on equality of opportunity.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 29 October, we shall be taking the report's recommendations into account in framing detailed proposals for new legislation on fair employment.

Does the Minister accept that the report has received considerable approval from most sections of society in Northern Ireland? Will he guarantee that he will introduce legislation to amend the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, and that because that was Westminster legislation he will introduce the new legislation before the House?

We are firmly committed to such legislation. The standing advisory commission's report contained some 240 specific recommendations, so we must give careful thought to the matter before we legislate. We shall bring the issues before the House; we are currently considering whether we should do that by a Bill or by order.

Is the Minister aware of what occurred yesterday in Northern Ireland when workers at Short's, the University of Ulster and at Fisher Body wanted to observe a one-minute silence? The managements said that, as a result of the FEA arrangements, they could not do that because it would offend certain employees in the work place. Is he aware that when nurses from the Royal Victoria hospital complex who worked with the nurse who was slaughtered asked that the Union Jack be put at half mast they were told that it would be offensive? It was only when the board intervened that the flag was flown at half mast. Will the Secretary of State assure the people of Northern Ireland that they will have the right to observe a one-minute silence in their workplace when atrocities are carried out by the IRA?

The points made by the hon. Gentleman do not directly follow the subject of the main question, but I assure him that the Government are committed to legislation on fair employment. We believe that our policy has the broad support of employers and employee representative bodies and is the right measure to reduce sectarian difficulties.

Does the Minister see any inconsistency in the fact that a person was recently removed from employment in this building who was merely suspected of supporting Sinn Fein, when the Government's legislation is forcing employers in Northern Ireland to employ people who positively support Sinn Fein?

The Government are committed to fair employment. The process that we have outlined in our consultative document and again in the employment guide in September is—

Answer the question.

Order.

Monitoring of sectarian background is necessary to encourage employers and employees to co-operate.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential, in maintaining the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland — not only in relation to the improvements that have been made in court procedures vis-à-vis the Diplock courts but in matters relating to fair employment — to ensure that Catholics have a fair opportunity to attain jobs on terms equal to those available to other members of the Ulster community?

My hon. Friend expresses the general view that it is broadly unacceptable to have unemployment among those from Catholic background at two and a half times higher than that among those from Protestant backgrounds, and that the Government line is the correct one.

Does the Minister accept that the standing advisory commission statistics, the Government's own consultative statistics and, indeed, his own remarks show an unprecedented frankness in admitting the extent of the problem and a determination to deal with it? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need a two-pronged approach? First, we need strong fair employment legislation to outlaw discrimination and to take sanctions against employers who deliberately discriminate; and, secondly, we need investment in areas of high unemployment. Anything that obstructs that process of investment damages the creation of fair employment in Northern Ireland.

The figures that I cited were the Government's figures, confirmed by the standing advisory commission. I support the line that the hon. Gentleman has put before the House. Clearly, if we can encourage further investment and project Northern Ireland as a good place to do business and a fair place to employ people, we shall help to promote further prosperity and jobs.

Does the Minister accept that that last aim could well be advanced if the Government showed firm political commitment to the measures in two ways? Does he agree that the report should be debated on the Floor of the House and, more important, will he give a commitment that the legislation will be introduced in the form of a Westminster Bill and not by order?

We are giving careful consideration to the latter point. On the timing of the legislation, there has been a large response to the proposals in our consultative paper. Some 80 substantial written representations have been made and it is crucial that we get the legislation right.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent consideration has been given to extending the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland.

The legalisation on abortion in Northern Ireland was last reviewed in 1985. At that time it was concluded that any change in the law would be opposed by an overwhelming majority of the population. I believe that that remains the case.

Is the Minister aware that some readily available ante-natal tests in Britain for the detection of serious congenital abnormalities are not so readily available in Northern Ireland? Is he further aware that in Northern Ireland a significantly higher percentage of babies are born with defects? Does that not give him good cause to reconsider the matter?

I am aware of the facts mentioned by the hon. Lady and I must admit that personally I should like to see a broader debate on this matter. However, therapeutic abortion is available in Northern Ireland and I am doing all that I can as the Minister responsible for health to make sure that people are properly counselled.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in this country regard the 1967 Act with utter abhorrence and would greatly regret its extension to Northern Ireland or anywhere else? We should bear in mind that only about 7 per cent. of babies surviving beyond the 18th week of pregnancy are born disabled, that many deformities are only slight and that many disabled people lead worthwhile lives.

I understand my hon. Friend's views and I appreciate the depth of her feelings. However, I believe that adequate and proper counselling should be available for mothers who may find themselves having a badly handicapped child, which may be immensely disruptive and destructive for the family.

The Minister has underlined the fact that therapeutic abortion is available in Northern Ireland. Will he also acknowledge that in our professor of genetics we have a very able person who is conducting a worthwhile scheme? However, in a week in which the House and the nation have shared in mourning the destruction of 12 lives in Northern Ireland, would the Minister not say that it was deplorable to suggest that an Act that has contributed to the destruction of almost 3 million human beings with potential should be extended to Northern Ireland? We do not want it.

As I have already said, it has been the policy not only of this Government but of their predecessors not to introduce legislation of that sort, which would be opposed by a large majority of the people in Northern Ireland. That remains the position.

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

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

Since I last answered questions in the House on 23 July, 29 people have been killed in incidents arising from the security situation. These include a number of believed terrorists killed by their own devices. Against that serious background, the security forces have achieved some significant results. So far this year 394 people have been charged with serious offences, including 25 with murder. A total of 230 weapons and approximately 13,000 rounds of ammunition and 12,725 lb of explosives have been recovered.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that after the ghastly and horrific events of the past few days there can be no doubt that those evil terrorists are the sworn enemies of all the people of Ireland, North and South? In the light of that, are we not entitled to expect, and likely to see, a renewed determination and total commitment by the Southern Irish Government to combat terrorism and impede it at every possible turn? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is more important than ever that the two Irish Governments should work together?

There is no question but that recent events have made a profound impression south of the border as well as north. I note reports in The Irish Times of the formation of a new security committee headed by the Taoiseach. There is no question but that the kidnapping had a serious and proper impact on thought. Enniskillen has rightly shocked everybody throughout the island of Ireland and the arms shipments are a serious matter, which every person in the island of Ireland needs to take seriously.

I asked the Secretary of State whether he was satisfied with the progress in the fight against terrorism and I am not clear from his answer whether he is. If he is satisfied, he must be the lone voice in the House today. If he is not satisfied with the progress in the fight against terrorism, when does he expect his level of confidence to match the requirements of the situation?

Of course I am not satisfied. I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I do not believe that any hon. Member could be satisfied with the progress on security after the events of recent days. There is no question of that at all. We are fighting hard. The hon. Gentleman does no credit to his knowledge of the situation to pretend that it lies in my hands or in the hands of the Government to wave a wand. There is a role for the security forces and for the leaders of all the communities in Northern Ireland. We owe it to all the people who have died in the tragedy of Northern Ireland not to seek to open old wounds. I believe that there is a new spirit flowing under the leadership of many of the people who have suffered most in Enniskillen. They want to see how they can build new bridges and make a new start. I plead with hon. Members who represent the Province not to open old wounds but to try to build on the spirit of what I believe is calling to them from these people and to give a new lead.

In order to further the new spirit to which the Secretary of State has referred, do all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland now fully and unequivocally support the members of the security forces? Does the right hon. Gentleman now expect appeals to be made for the minority to join the security forces in greater numbers, so that we can present a united front irrespective or religion or politics against the men of terror?

As I made clear in my answer, I look to all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to give the fullest support to the security forces, and I should dearly like to see enhanced recruitment of members of the minority community. The evidence in recent years of the contribution made by the security forces in upholding the law impartially, protecting Nationalists as well as Unionists in the face of intimidation and terror, entitles them to the fullest support of both communities in Northern Ireland.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that we need not only the co-operation of the Catholic part of the community, important though that is, but co-operation from Dublin as well? In that context, will the right hon. Gentleman reiterate his hope that the extradition agreement will be enacted on 1 December? Will he also tell us why the Prime Minister ruled out a joint security commission before discussions with the Irish Government had even taken place?

I am not sure that I picked up what the hon. Gentleman said about the joint security commission. However, I have made no secret of my concern about the extradition treaty. I have no hesitation in making it clear where I stand on that.

Is my right hon. Friend not appalled that this morning the IRA placed a nail bomb outside a primary school in Belfast, which, mercifully, was defused by the security forces? Does he not agree that the "sympathy" expressed by Sinn Fein is nothing more than an obscenity?

As the House will know, within hours of the issue of that contemptible statement of regret, a further bomb was identified. It had been placed at a Remembrance Day parade in Tullyhommon, near Pettigo. The overwhelming casualties that would have resulted if the bomb had gone off—thankfully, the IRA failed to detonate it—would have been civilians : young members of the Boys Brigade and the Girls Brigade, their parents and other spectators. It ultimately and totally reveals the contemptible nature of the IRA campaign.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the bomb that exploded in Enniskillen was a very political bomb? Does he agree that its aim was to damage the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and that the people who stand to suffer most from that agreement are the Provisional IRA, who fear the two communities coming together as the Secretary of State has recommended?

Certainly I agree. It would be difficult to conceive of an attack more villainously designed to stir up sectarian hatred than that outrage—in its conception and in the location and target of the bomb. I make no secret of the fact that I know that the IRA is determined to smash any attempt at closer co-operation between the British and the Irish Governments. I also know that, if we are to defeat the evil of terrorism, that co-operation is vital.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only positive response to outrages such as that at Enniskillen is to reaffirm our determination to make a success of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Will he assure the House that not only is that his view, but that he will make every effort to ensure that that view is shared by the Republic?

Co-operation must be the right way forward and it is overwhelmingly in the interests of the majority and minority communities in Northern Ireland. The majority community has the greatest possible interest in a more effective attack on the problems of terrorism and in improvements in security. I am determined to work for that and I accept the advice of the Chief Constable that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has given him the best possible opportunity for furthering that cause.

Mr. Jim Marshall to ask Question 5.

rose—

I am sorry. I had not realised that I had not called the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. Mr. McNamara.

You do not have to, Mr. Speaker. As I echo most of the opinions expressed by the Secretary of State, I shall not pursue the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make available the evidence on which his decision to withdraw ACE funding from various organisations in Northern Ireland has been taken.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the main criteria used in deciding whether or not to renew ACE funding to organisations in receipt of such funding.

Subject to the availability of resources, priority is given to projects which provide services for disadvantaged groups, those which may promote permanent employment, and projects in areas where the level of ACE provision is lower than the local incidence of long-term unemployment would warrant. With the exception of a small number of cases where security considerations apply, I am willing to discuss the basis on which a decision to withdraw or not to renew ACE funding has been taken.

I hope that the Minister will accept that no Labour Member wishes to see any Government money get into the hands of any terrorist organisation on either side in the Province, but is he aware of the damage that is done to community relations when ACE funding is withdrawn and no reasons are given? If so, does he agree that, in order to minimise that damage, it would be elementary justice to introduce either a right of appeal against the Government's decisions or an independent review body to look at the decisions?

ACE is a popular scheme and its funding and numbers have increased every year since it was introduced by the Government in 1981. More than 6,000 people are now involved in those places and there is a waiting list of 4,000. However, in a small number of cases there is a dispute about the way in which ACE funding has been withdrawn. For security reasons no details can be given, but each case is dealt with on its merits and a change in the pertinent circumstances can lead to a review of the case.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said, I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to see money used for purposes that would damage security, but, if I may pick a comment in the Minister's reply, will he meet representatives of the Twinbrook tenants and community association, from which I understand that funds have been withdrawn? It may not be possible for him to state the reasons for that now, but will he meet representatives?

The terms on which support for ACE groups can sometimes be withdrawn were spelt out in detail by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. in a reply in the House on 27 June 1985. For security reasons it is not advisable for us to give details of the reasons for the withdrawal of ACE funding.

Will the Minister encourage voluntary organisations to make full use of the ACE scheme, particularly as many elderly and handicapped people would benefit from the services of some young people in their homes or gardens?

We try hard to ensure that ACE funding goes to those groups that are in the best position to assist the kind of disadvantaged groups that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals and organisations have applied for funding from the international fund for Ireland; if he will list those approved with the amount granted in each case; and if he will make a statement.

The international fund for Ireland is administered by an independent board appointed by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic. Details of applications for assistance and awards made are a matter for the board. A copy of the fund's press notice of 27 August detailing programme allocations totalling £47·9 million is in the Library.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied and certain —if not will he make himself certain—that no money from the fund reaches any paramilitary or terrorist organisation? I have in mind especially the seepage that tends to happen from industries such as the construction industry to such organisations through the evil and unacceptable method of the protection racket.

I endorse entirely my hon. Friend's sentiments. That important consideration exercises the chairman and the board members of the fund when they consider individual applications, which are, of course, carefully scrutinised from that standpoint.

Is the Minister aware that the European Community is willing to contribute to the fund and that it is simply awaiting encouragement from one member state—the British Government? Will he please give the Community that encouragement?

The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the background to that. This matter raises wider issues of the EEC budget. He is aware of the substantial contributions that have been made in the Province and the Republic by the EEC through infrastructure funds and in other ways.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's impertinent and raucous advice to the Americans about their domestic financial affairs is especially unfortunate because it provides some partial justification for the Americans in their arrogant and ignorant support of the Anglo-Irish Agreement through the fund?

The Government Front Bench and, I believe, many Conservative Back Benchers and many Opposition Members welcome the fact that by August this year the United States Government had made significant contributions to the international fund. That is an important testimony to the American Administration's commitment to the process of economic and social advancement and reconciliation in North and South.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the last meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference established by the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

The last meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference took place on 21 October. A joint statement was issued after the meeting, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. As that records, the conference discussed a range of matters, including extradition, the administration of justice, cross-border security and economic co-operation and religious equality of opportunity in employment.

While thanking the Secretary of State for that reply may I ask him to confirm that the barbaric events in Enniskillen underline the critical importance of the co-operation of the Irish Government in all areas, and that that is best achieved under the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Will he accept that many of us in the House wish to play our part in the parliamentary tier envisaged by that agreement? Will he advise us when action will be taken on that to open the door so that every hon. Member of the House can play a constructive role in that process?

Those who consider the position today will recognise the vital importance of closer co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic. There is great merit in closer understanding between hon. Members in this House and the Houses of Parliament of the Dail Eireann. However, it is for hon. Members of this House to decide the ways in which they want to achieve that.

After two years, cannot Ministers be honest, humble and courageous enough to admit that the agreement has outraged most people in the Province, including moderate people, without achieving its aims and that it should be reviewed, as is provided in the agreement? How can my right hon. Friend continue to treat Northern Ireland as a colonial condominium? Is riot the surest safeguard against any sectarian domination, of which the Social Democratic and Labour party speaks, to treat Northern Ireland as truly part of this Kingdom, under this one Parliament, because that is the surest guarantee of minority rights?

I advise my hon. Friend, whose interest in such matters I greatly respect, that the slogans that address this matter are not the most helpful way forward. However, I congratulate him on being prepared to put forward ideas, sit down and discuss them. What Northern Ireland now needs, above all after the events of recent days, is leadership from the leaders of all the parties in Northern Ireland to consider whether there is some way in which we can work to find ways in which there could be improvements. There is a later question on the Order Paper in the answer to which I make it clear that, although the Government support the concept of devolution, there may be difficulties in the speed of progress that can be made towards it. Obviously there is a case for looking at whatever alternatives can be considered as well. What I hope we can say and what I hope is the message from the people of Northern Ireland to their elected representatives, is, "Let us start talking constructively about the way forward."

My right hon. Friend is aware that I passionately support the cause of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. However, at a time when the two nations are, quite properly, determined to establish their separateness and their sovereignty, is there still a case for extending to the citizens of Southern Ireland so many privileges that are uniquely extended to them compared to other citizens of the European Community?

Of all the problems and issues that we have at the moment, that is a particular area in which I would not propose to trespass. However, it is true to say that, as my hon. Friend is aware, the particular and unique privilege regarding voting has been reciprocated by the Republic of Ireland.

Does the Secretary of State accept that. in my constituency; the Anglo-Irish Agreement has not produced the smallest vestige of improved security? Does he recall that the murder of Corporal Thomas Hewitt occurred when a sniper from the Irish Republic killed that young soldier in Belleek? Will he also give a detailed account to the House of the circumstances surrounding the bomb at Tullyhommon, which was placed in an area where young people were assembling for a church parade? The bomb was intended to wipe out an entire generation of young people in the Tullyhommon area and the attempt to detonate it was made from a hill in the Irish Republic.

In respect of the first illustration that the hon. Gentleman has given of the murder of a British service man at Belleek, he will be aware that the Garda Siochana subsequently arrested one person in the Republic who has now been charged, although not initially, with murder. Obviously, co-operation in such matters is extremely important to us. In respect of the second matter, I have made extremely clear my views on the outrage that was attempted at Tullyhommon. The hon. Gentleman's account is accurate and I entirely share his feelings on that matter.

Will the Secretary of State answer the question that is on the lips of the hundreds of people from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who are lobbying the House today? After two years of an agreement, the declared aims of which were to produce peace, stability and reconciliation, but which instead has increased the death toll, polarised the community and caused political and economic instability beyond that that we ever had before, when will the Secretary of State end the agony, bury the agreement and get a satisfactory alternative?

The hon. Member talks as though the problems of Northern Ireland started two years ago. He knows perfectly well that the troubles of Northern Ireland and the terrorist campaigns go back very much longer than that. He knows very well that the scale of murders in Northern Ireland was vastly higher some years ago than even the existing appalling level, which I find quite unacceptable. May I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said to the House, and as I have said to the elected politicians of Northern Ireland, that Ulster cannot just say no. Ulster must say yes to something. The hon. Gentleman has a responsibility in that matter, if I may say so—a responsibility which he and one or two others have sought to address. I hope that others will be willing to look constructively at constructive solutions.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the continuance of the present divide in Northern Ireland will only result in hopelessness and cynicism about what is happening in mainland Britain concerning the Irish problem? Does he agree that the only way of dealing with the problem over the long period during which Ireland has been in this state has been through positive initiatives towards Ireland as a whole? The only way to soften the divide between the different parts of Ireland is to recognise it as an entity, so that we can move towards a proper unity of the Irish people and nation.

If I understood that question correctly, I think that my answer is no.

Will the Secretary of State take it from me that none of the eleven people who died in the massacre at Enniskillen wanted to be associated with the Anglo-Irish Agreement? They did not die — [Interruption.] I know that, because I know that the people of Northern Ireland have completely rejected the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It has brought nothing but death and destruction.

It is most unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman has introduced those elements of argument into a tragedy and outrage that has united people in condemnation. I do not know of his right to speak for every single individual in this. All of us who believe in democracy know that we shall stand united against terrorism. We are all determined on that course. It is the most united message that the House can give.

May I return to the issue of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and say that if hon. Members did not understand the Secretary of State's difficulties before, they will now, after the last supplementary question? We believe that the Government are to be congratulated on the way in which they have been able to defy the bomber and the constitutional wrecker in maintaining the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We want it to go ahead and be extended to include not only security matters but others of economic and social importance for the benefit of all the people of Ireland. In many ways, the last declaration of the Anglo-Irish Conference was one of the most helpful and constructive that there has been for a long time.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I have made it clear to the House that the agreement is a sensible basis on which to co-operate in a number of matters of benefit to the people north and south of the border in the island of Ireland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he is considering to enable the people of Northern Ireland to have a greater say in the administration of the Province.

While I believe that some form of devolved government would best meet the needs of Northern Ireland, the crucial test for any system is whether it can command widespread acceptance. I am willing, therefore, to consider any proposals that might pass that test.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming reaction to the massacre at Enniskillen is a feeling that unless the community is prepared to live under the shadow of the gunman and bomber indefinitely, it must find a way of working together? Earlier, my right hon. Friend referred to a new spirit. If he is to make something of that, is this not the moment for the Government to bring forward an initiative for some type of political forum in which the political parties in Northern Ireland could take part?

I have made it clear that I would welcome discussions on any matters along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests. Whether it would he best for the Government to bring them forward, or whether others should seek to propose them and at a later stage the Government might become involved, is a matter for consideration. The events of recent days and weeks make clear the responsibility on all of us to see whether we can find a way in which that spirit of reconciliation that is echoing out of Enniskillen and other parts of Northern Ireland at this time can enable us to recognise our responsibility towards the people showing that spirit.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the report of the Northern Ireland Economic Council recently published and indicate what further action he intends to take to reduce the unemployment prospect facing Northern Ireland.

I welcome the constructive assessment contained in this report. Unemployment continues to be a problem, but, as shown by the figures published this morning, it is encouraging to note that for the past five months the underlying trend of unemployment in Northern Ireland has been consistently downwards. The improvement shown in the monthly figures announced today was the biggest drop in the seasonally adjusted year-on-year numbers for 13 years.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the Northern Ireland Economic Council recently forecast that in the coming years unemployment would increase in Northern Ireland? At 18·7 per cent. it is now the highest in the United Kingdom. Does he agree that those figures disguise the hidden unemployment, because of such special schemes as ACE and YTP, a prolific security industry and emigration? Does he further agree that recent Government action will exacerbate unemployment in Northern Ireland?

It is of course true that many people are undergoing training on Government schemes. We are proud of that, not ashamed of it. Substantial new business investments are being made and more jobs are becoming available in areas of industry where Northern Ireland is a leader. This is good news and should promote more confidence that Northern Ireland is a good place in which to do business.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November 1987.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to welcome the decision by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the commendably swift report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission giving the go-ahead to the bid by British Airways for British Caledonian? Does she agree that such a merger is likely to be in the interests of both companies, their employees and customers, and that it is wholly consistent with the Government's competition policy? However, will she give an undertaking that if British Airways fails to comply with the conditions for competition the Government will not hesitate to refer British Airways back to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission worked with commendable speed and that the decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been widely welcomed. I also agree that the merger is consistent with the Government's policy on competition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made it clear that he expects the Monopolies and Mergers Commission proposals to be fully implemented. Assuming that the merger goes ahead, the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority has undertaken to report in a year to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about its implementation on the basis proposed.

Are we to take it for granted that from now on the Government's policy on competition is the creation of private monopolies in gas, electricity and airlines, regardless of the interests of the consumer?

No. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the BCal-British Airways merger was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He is also aware that in the absence of an adverse public interest finding by the MMC there are no powers for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to prevent the merger. The right hon. Gentleman must await the Bill on electricity privatisation to see how that industry is to be privatised.

The terms of reference of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are one thing; the Government's role as the ultimate safeguarder of the public interest is another. Will the Prime Minister answer the question? Is the future to be one of private monopolies, whereas previously she has been critical of public monopolies?

The right hon. Gentleman is critical of the decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer"]. I will answer in my own way. The right hon. Gentleman is critical of the decision taken on British Airways and British Caledonian. That is the meaning of his question. [Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister must he given a chance to answer.

My right hon. Friend took the decision to refer the merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The commission decided that the acquisition would not operate against the public interest and I have just informed the right hon. Gentleman that, in the absence of an adverse public interest finding by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, there are no powers for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to prevent the merger. Our competition policy remains. There are other powers under competition legislation if concerns arise in the future.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

Will my right hon. Friend spend a little time today looking at the latest unemployment figures, which show that for the 16th month in succession unemployment has fallen—to below 10 per cent.? Does she agree that, together with the steady growth in inflation, the steadiness in inflation and the value of the pound, the people of this country and abroad can rejoice in the strength of the British economy, which strength has come about through her Government?

My hon. Friend is quite right. The unemployment figures today are encouraging. Unemployment has now fallen by a record 445,000 over the past year, faster than in any other major industrialised country. Six years of economic growth show the wisdom of the Government's economic policies. Sound finance and British enterprise have produced the highest standard of living the country has ever known.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

In a week in which the House has experienced the sordid use of bought political influence, it has been announced that private companies, without any reference to their shareholders, donated more than £2·5 million to the Conservative party in 1986. Is it not time that the Government introduced legislation to provide that shareholders are balloted before companies make political contributions, or is this simply another case of where the Government's stated political principles come second to their political and private greed?

I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's charge. The reason why Conservative Members supported the Felixstowe Bill is that Felixstowe is an excellent port. The Bill will help it to develop and it will be good for jobs, enterprise, exports, prosperity and the local people generally. No wonder the Labour party opposed it.

While warmly welcoming yesterday's surprise announcement that the Government now intend to reform the Official Secrets Act, may I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify whether her replacement legislation is likely to be a measure in the direction of greater liberalisation, or greater restriction?

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said earlier this week, work has been in hand for some time to find effective enforceable and reasonable provisions to replace section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. If, in the light of that work, we decide to bring forward further proposals for the reform, we shall announce our intentions in due course. I hope that my hon. Friend is conscious of the criticisms that have been levelled at the 1979 Bill. A great deal of work was done on that Bill. The Franks report was produced in the lifetime of the last Labour Government and that Government produced a White Paper. We brought forward the proposals then fashioned in the White Paper, but they did not find favour in the House. Therefore, we must be careful with the measures that we bring forward. They will be more restrictive than the present section 2. My hon. Friend did not need to ask a question to secure that reply.

Presumably the Prime Minister did not mean to say that the legislation would be more restrictive.

That is what the right hon. Lady said.

I know that is what the Prime Minister said, but presumably it is not what she meant. Presumably it will not be more restrictive than section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Will the right hon. Lady support the private Member's Bill being introduced by her hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) to repeal section 2?

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Should we decide to bring forward a new section 2, it will be less restrictive than the present section 2, for obvious reasons. Indeed, so was the clause brought forward in 1979, which was rejected, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. A great deal of work had been done by both sides of the House then and it was thought to be a virtually agreed measure, but it did not turn out to be so.

In view of the imputations against my right hon. Friend over her support of yesterday's business, does she agree that it is remarkable that the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society spent £10,000 on the London Labour party—

Order. I will explain afterwards why that is not in order.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

In the course of her busy day, will the Prime Minister take time to read early-day motion 96 about speech therapists, which has been signed by 222 hon. Members belonging to all parties? Will she note that the motion draws attention to the grave shortage of speech therapists and their low salaries compared with those of other graduate professions? Will she, as a woman and as Prime Minister, support speech therapists, who are predominantly a female profession, in their efforts to obtain equal pay for work of equal value compared to that of other graduate professions in the National Health Service, which are mainly male?

Yes, of course, I shall read the motion. On pay, my recollection, subject to checking, is that speech therapists stayed outside the professions supplementary to medicine being referred to the review body on pay.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to send a message to the Customs service and to the Dutch authorities to congratulate them on their success in discovering the £51 million haul of drugs this week?

Yes, gladly, both to the Customs officers, who are delighted with the haul, and to the Dutch authorities, on their efficiency. The drug seizure was double the total amount seized in Britain in the whole of last year. That is very good news and we gladly give congratulations to all concerned in the seizure.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

Does the right hon. Lady recall the statement that she made to the House last week in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), when she claimed that funding for the National Health Service had been transferred, thus improving the service in the north? May I draw to her attention the fact that in Manchester royal eye hospital old people aged 78 and 80 are waiting 60 weeks for their first appointments and up to two years for cataract operations? How does the Prime Minister square that with the statement she made last week?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that under the reallocation of health resources more has been allocated outside London to help other hospitals. I have visited many new hospitals which have come about as a result. He is also aware that far more cataract operations are undertaken now than there were eight years ago. It is hoped that under the waiting list provision that improvement will continue.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that millions of people throughout the country will have welcomed the fact that the Licensing Bill received its Second Reading last week? No doubt quite a few hon. Members in the House will have welcomed that as well. Does she agree that that is one more successful step down the path of deregulation, and that removing the obstacles and burdens from both large and small firms is the best way to get them to grow and create the new jobs that we all need?

I welcome the passage of the Licensing Bill to its Second Reading and I hope that it will complete all its stages without any hitches.

Noting the resolve of the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic to bring to justice those who planted the bomb in Enniskillen, may I ask whether the Prime Minister agrees that no one should use the terrible suffering of those people of Enniskillen for political reasons? Does she further agree that the job of politics in the north of Ireland now is to translate the humanity, compassion and forgiveness of the relatives of people who have suffered in Enniskillen into politics in the north of Ireland for the betterment of all the people there?

I believe that the brave and noble reaction of the people of Enniskillen has had a profound effect on all who witnessed it. The people of Enniskillen have no time for hate, only for dignity and help. Now is the time for co-operation between the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, that is, those who reject violence. They must come together to make a new move forward.