On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

What is the point of order?

Given that the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill was due to be debated on 15 June and that, so far as this House is concerned, Wednesday has not existed, and will never exist, why has the business for that day been brought back on to the Order Paper?

It has been brought back because the Chairman of Ways and Means has named Wednesday 22 June for that debate.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

What is the point of order?

On the Southern Water Authority Bill, which you called first, I twice shouted "Object," but it appears that you did not hear me.

I am afraid that I did not. The hon. Lady must make her objections very clearly. I did not hear the hon. Lady's objection, and I was listening carefully. My recollection is that the hon. Lady said "Object" after I had moved on to the next Bill.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many of my hon. Friends heard my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) say "Object". I fully understand that you did not hear, but, as it is within the recollection of many Conservative Members that my hon. Friend did say "Object," would it not be possible for you to reconsider the matter?

As a matter of chivalry, I will accept the objection, but I say to the hon. Lady and to the whole House that it is helpful to the Chair for objections to be made clearly. I shall put the Question again.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) rose, I objected to the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill as well, and I ask you to take that objection into account, too.

I am afraid that that cannot be taken into account, because that is a case of a day named by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on income and wealth distribution in the light of the Church of Scotland study entitled "Just Sharing", a copy of which has been sent to him.

The Government's policy is to create the conditions in which everybody can increase their incomes and acquire wealth.

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer not replying to this question himself because he knows that the facts revealed in "Just Sharing" show that there is a growing and worsening problem of poverty? Does the Minister accept that recent information has made it clear that the consequences for 300,000 children losing their school meals are quite dire? Will the Minister encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set aside his complacency and respond to the pleas of the Churches and many others to give priority to the restoration of the £800 million that he raided from the social security budget, with dire consequences for the under-privileged?

I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he is well aware, compensation for the loss of free school meals was included in family credit at the time of the reforms.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Scots already enjoy a disproportionate amount of the wealth of the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that, for example, health expenditure in Scotland is 25 per cent. per head higher than in England? Is he also aware that the Scots enjoy the second highest average earnings in the United Kingdom, apart from London and the south-east? Will he report those facts to the Church of Scotland when making his balanced response to its report?

My hon. Friend makes his points entirely clearly and accurately. I am sure that the Church of Scotland will note his comments. It is the case that in its share of public expenditure and in its economic performance at the moment, Scotland is doing extremely well.

Is it not disgraceful, given the Chancellor of the Exchequer's objectives of wanting all to share in the wealth of the country, that if someone with a wife and two children aged eight and 11 had an increase in income from £60 to £150 a week he would be able to retain only £12?

As a result of my right hon. Friend's tax changes in this and previous Budgets it is undoubtedly the fact that at all levels of income there is a higher level of net disposable income than before my right hon. Friend became Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question shows that the Opposition parties are utterly obsessed with the distribution of wealth, that they have no concern for the creation of wealth, and that all their policies are designed to destroy the creation of wealth?

If one looks at the record it is clear that that has certainly been the practical effect of policies that the Opposition have put into practice when in government. The distribution of wealth is legitimately a matter for debate. It is regrettable that "Just Sharing" simply refers to the distribution of wealth, not to the creation of it.

Given the Government's complacent and so far wholly shameful response to the pleas of the Churches on poverty and social justice, will the Minister tell the Churches how he justifies a state charity social fund which transfers the responsibility or relieving poverty from Ministers to charities and voluntary organisations, while at the same time someone in the top 1 per cent. with an income above £50,000 a year has gained on average a total of £110,000 in tax cuts since 1979? Does he agree that the real motto of this Government is not, as they would like us to believe, "God helps those who help themselves", but, as Ministers know very well, "God helps those whom he has already helped" even at the expense of fairness to the rest of the community?

The hon. Gentleman is misleading in a number of his remarks. Before we can share any wealth, it must be created. It is precisely because of our success in creating wealth in this country that this year we are spending about £481½ billion on social security benefits. With regard to the distribution of wealth, it is a matter of fact that the top 1 per cent. have a noticeably smaller share of the total wealth in this country today than a few years ago.

With regard to the study by the Church of Scotland, does my right hon. Friend accept that the Church should address itself to religious matters instead of interfering in the economy? Does he also accept that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is better trained and far more successful in handling that kind of thing than is the Church?

I certainly echo the points that my hon. Friend has made about the success of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a matter of record that "Just Sharing" concentrates substantially on distribution, although, of course, I must state that it is also concerned with ethical and moral questions.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the gross pre-tax incomes of the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers have risen from 1978–79 to 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

Gross incomes of the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers rose by about 43 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1987–88.

Given that the real rise in pre-tax incomes among the rest of the population was less than half that, does that not show that when the Chancellor claims that cutting the rate for the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers produces more tax, that is merely a by-product of the rich getting richer over the past nine years compared with the rest of the population? For example, a person with an income of £50,000 per year has gained tax cuts of £500 per week since 1979, whereas a couple on half average earnings of £120 a week will be paying £4 per week more after tax and national insurance are taken into account. Is that not poverty in the midst of conspicuous abundance?

The premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is wrong. Although the share of pre-tax gross incomes among the top 5 per cent. has increased two percentage points, their contribution to the Inland Revenue tax take has increased by four percentage points, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong. He seems to believe that there is something surprising about the fact that when one gives people incentives, their salaries increase. That is exactly what we expect and it is not in any way surprising. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that 5 million taxpayers on less than half average earnings have enjoyed a 22 per cent. reduction in their tax burden as a result of the Budget.

Is not my right hon. Friend's response and the figures that he used of particular interest, because they put the final nail in the coffin of the suggestion that sky-high taxation raises extra revenue for the Exchequer?

My hon. Friend is right. The tax take from the top 5 per cent. has increased by one third in real percentage terms. That is the overall increase in the whole take of the Inland Revenue, and that result is of benefit to the whole country.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is being unusually brazen with the House this afternoon. He says that the wealthiest 5 per cent. of people in our society have benefited to the extent of 43 per cent. in real terms over the period that this Government have been in office. I do not blame him for neglecting to explain —but I invite him to do so now —why the Government felt it necessary to give that most privileged of groups an additional £3 billion in tax cuts on top of what they have already received in this year's Budget.

The object of tax cuts is to improve the performance of the economy. The overwhelming evidence is that they have achieved precisely that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there was not very much point in earning an extra £1 when one needed to earn an extra £50 to keep that pound? In those circumstances it would have been far better to go to a Socialist country, such as New Zealand, with a top tax rate of about one third, as applied under the previous Labour Administration.

My hon. Friend is right; and he might have added that post-tax real income at all multiples of earnings in this country has increased dramatically under this Government, whereas for some people, especially the lower paid, it declined under the previous Labour Government. The Opposition may believe that there is some point in Socialism that makes people poorer, but most find that concept rather puzzling.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding the rise in the deutschmark-pound sterling exchange rate since the beginning of 1988 and its effects on British industry.

The deutschmark—sterling exchange rate rose from 2·96 at the start of 1988 to a peak of 3·19 on 16 May, and has since fallen to 3·13. Over the period as a whole it has risen by a little over 5 per cent.

Will the Chancellor return to the policy, which he held before March this year, of keeping within the DM2.80 to DM3 bracket? Does he not realise that the high value of the pound is destroying British industry's ability to export, and British tourism by reducing the number of people visiting this country? Does he recall that when a similar policy of high exchange and high interest rates was followed between 1980 and 1981 it destroyed 20 per cent. of British industry? Will the Chancellor operate an exchange rate policy in which he believes, instead of one based on the prejudice of the Prime Minister?

The hon. Gentleman is making a great deal out of a small change in the exchange rate. Over the whole of the period since 1981 our share of world trade in manufactured goods has held steady, after decades of decline. Therefore, our exporters are doing well and will continue to do well. What they want to see is a reasonable degree of stability in the exchange rate. What they do not want to see—certainly what the economy does not want —is a steady depreciation of sterling, which is the only exchange rate policy of the Opposition.

Is it not true that sterling has depreciated against the deutschmark by about 20 per cent. over the past three years and by about 60 per cent. since 1980? Is it not also true that the two countries with the most steadily increasing currencies since the war—Germany and Japan—have also been the most successful industrially?

It is true that the more successful a country's economy is, the greater is the likelihood that its exchange rate will appreciate over a period of time.

How is the Chancellor getting on with his task of advising the Prime Minister on when the time will be right for Britain to join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS? Does he update her on whether the time is right on a weekly or monthly basis? Will he tell her that industry wants the stability, particularly in relation to the deutschmark, that the EMS would provide?

I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point, which he has made on many occasions. The Government's policy on that issue remains the policy that they have stated on many occasions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that industry and commerce are basically in favour of stable exchange rates and that, while his skilful use of interest rate changes during the past three months has achieved a fair measure of stability, that must remain a second-best alternative to full membership of the EMS?

Clearly, there is a strong case to be made for membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS, and the Government agree that Britain should join. The question is when? The Government have not yet reached the conclusion that the right time has arrived.

On the substantive point, my hon. Friend is right in saying that swings in the exchange rate are not helpful to industry to the economy or to the battle against inflation. Nor, I am glad to say, have we seen wild swings in the exchange rate, certainly not the sterling exchange rate, over recent years.

Why did the Chancellor not answer that part of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) that asked for his opinion on the effect of the exchange rate on British industry? Is not the exchange rate at its present level deeply harmful to the competitive prospects of British industry, as the leaders of industry constantly point out? Does the Chancellor recall that he once had a policy of shadowing the deutschmark at DM3 to the pound before the Prime Minister wrecked his policy? Has he seen the revision in the current account balance of payments figures, which shows that they were under-estimated for the first quarter by £900 million, showing a deficit of £2·8 billion, which, annualised, would be £11·2 billion as against a Budget prediction of £4 billion? What will he do about Britain's balance of payments crisis?

There is no balance of payments crisis. The current account of the balance of payments inevitably fluctuates over time, and the only need for a balance is over a long period, not in any particular year. Over the previous eight years we have had a cumulative current account surplus of over £21 billion. This year I forecast a deficit of £4 billion. I have seen the revision, and there may be further revisions, as there frequently are. It is now likely that the deficit for this year will be larger—I cannot say how much larger—than I forecast at the time of the Budget, but there is no hint of a crisis, and that is fully understood by the markets and by those who are economically literate.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the fall in long-term unemployment in the year to January 1988.

Long-term unemployment fell by 234,000 in the year to January 1988, and by a further 71,000 between January and April. The fall over the last year is the largest on record, and it has happened in all regions.

I welcome that positive news, but will my right hon. Friend enlarge on it and tell us a little more about the reflection of those figures in the regions of most persistent and difficult long-term unemployment?

One of the attractive features of the fall in unemployment over the past 22 months has been the dramatic fall in the north-west, the north, Yorkshire and Humberside. That is particularly true of long-term unemployment, which has fallen by 21·9 per cent. in the north-west, 19·1 per cent. in the north, 22·6 per cent. in Wales and 15·6 per cent. in Scotland.

How much longer will we have to wait before unemployment is on the same scale as in May 1979?

The hon. Gentleman may be drawing a distinction between the number of people who were registered as unemployed and the number who were in jobs that genuinely did not exist when the Labour Government were in office.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an obvious answer to all those who want to know how unemployment has fallen? They should visit the former unemployment black spot of Corby, where unemployment has been dropping sensationally and will continue to do so.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is noticeable that although throughout the last election the Opposition claimed that unemployment was about to rise, since then it has fallen by half a million.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officials of his Department are responsible for monitoring (a) the social security budget, and (b) other Department of Health and Social Security services.

There are eight officials currently employed in the Treasury who deal with the social security budget, and 16 officials who deal with other Department of Health and Social Security expenditure.

Have those officials informed the Chancellor that Britain spends less per head of population than any other European Community country? Are they also advising him how much he will be able to put into the National Health Service? May we have an assurance that he will fight to ensure that we receive adequate and proper funding for the National Health Service in the next round?

Health Service expenditure for 1988–89 is now £22½ billion, and there will be 9 per cent. more cash in the Health Service this year than last year. That is a dramatic increase.

Will my right hon. Friend have a word with one of the officials dealing with the health budget in an endeavour to confirm that if the Government have it in mind to bring forward additional resources for health care, one of the least efficient ways of doing so would be to introduce tax relief against private health insurance, as proposed in certain quarters? We should remember that 5 million people and their employers already hold health care policies without such an inducement.

Health resources will be discussed in the public expenditure round in the autumn.

In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I have no intention of commenting on such a speculation.

Will the Chief Secretary tell the House whether those officials have looked into the policy of health authorities that close down small hospitals on the basis that health care will be available in the private sector —albeit funded to a large extent by social security—and, when challenged, say that they have no obligation to take into account public expenditure on that social security? Will he look into the matter urgently?

The hon. Gentleman's substantive point is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services than for me. The primary responsibility of the officials of my Department is to discuss with, and advise, me on the level of resources that should go into the health budget.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new jobs have been created in the economy since 1983.

Since 1983 nearly 1¾ million new jobs have been created, more than in the whole of the rest of the European Community put together.

I welcome that very encouraging news. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the ingredients that the economy requires to create so many new jobs? Is it not a fact that more jobs have been created in the United Kingdom than in the rest of Europe put together? A job is a job, regardless of how the Opposition may denigrate them, whether part-time or full-time. Those jobs are providing employment for the people of this country.

My hon. Friend is right to be encouraged by the dynamism that the economy has shown in a number of respects, not least through the creation of new jobs, many of which have been created by the birth, in increasing numbers, of new companies. The view used to he that the only way that the economy could expand was by increasing the Budget deficit, but we have demonstrated that there can be unparalleled growth by reducing and eliminating altogether the Budget deficit. That has been the reason for the success of the enterprise culture, for tax reductions and reform, trade union law reform and all the other reforms on the so-called supply side of the economy that have enabled the economy to perform more freely and to work better.

As it is the Government's policy to force down wages as low as possible, can the Chancellor tell us how many of these jobs attract lower wages than were previously paid, on average?

If it were the Government's policy to force down wages as low as possible, which it is not, we are being notably unsuccessful.

As the north-west of England has shown one of the biggest increases in new jobs and the biggest falls in long-term unemployment, does it not prove that the old north-south divide under Labour is now a north-west success under the Conservatives? [Interruption.]

My hon. Friend is right. Despite the ignorant jeers of the Opposition, one of the most encouraging factors about the changes in unemployment and employment over the past few years is the way in which unemployment has been falling and jobs have been growing in every region of the country.

I welcome the Chancellor's statement about the large number of new jobs. Did he notice that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury did not mention Northern Ireland when he referred to the regions where there is long-term unemployment? May we be assured that we shall enjoy some of these benefits referred to, especially in the light of Northern Ireland's low-wage economy, which does not attract new jobs?

Over the past year there has been a drop of about 5 per cent. in the number of long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, I fully understand the very considerable difficulties in the Province, partly as a result of the peculiar and unsatisfactory conditions that prevail there and partly because there is still an excessive dependence on older industries. We are seeing a change in the industrial structure of Northern Ireland, which is very important for the future of new jobs there.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of wage rate settlements for the last 12 months for which figures are available and what were the figures for the preceding 12 months; and what is the underlying trend.

CBI data show that settlements in manufacturing industry in the 12 months to the first quarter of this year averaged 5½ per cent., the same as in the comparable period last year. The corresponding figures for services are 6½ and 6 per cent.

Will my right lion. Friend say what advice he has given or that he is prepared to give now to companies and to work forces to make sure that wage negotiations do not lead to a deterioration in unit labour costs, which is a far more important concept than wage levels? Does he agree that managers are part of the work force and that we shall be looking to them for considerable powers of leadership to make sure that the snouts do not dig too deeply into the pig trough?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for Conservative Members to pass around newspaper cuttings with a clear view to conducting a stunt in a few minutes' time?

Order. A hypothetical stunt, I think.

In response to my hon. Friend's question, my advice to firms is to remind them that the Government intend to pursue a firm anti-inflation policy. Obviously, it is possible for excessive wage or salary increases to result in people being priced out of jobs. It is the responsibility of management to ensure that companies can afford the deals that are done, and that they apply to all people within the company.

Does the Minister accept that, despite the figures for wage settlements that he has just mentioned, many workers still have to live on unacceptably low wages? Why do the Government not do something to ensure that those people get a fair share of the prosperity that the Government claim exists at present? Why do they not lend their support to the calls for a national minimum wage? Is it not time that we had one?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that a national minimum wage would mean fewer jobs available for the low paid and would be counter-productive. I would take much more seriously the hon. Gentleman's concern about the lower paid if the record of the Labour party in terms of the lower paid had been better, but many of the lower paid have done far better under this Government and have had substantial increases in their take-home pay.

To what extent has the increase in public sector pay been covered by increases in productivity? As a higher proportion of private sector pay is covered by productivity gains, particularly in manufacturing industry, does my right hon. Friend agree that this year inflationary pressures will come more from the public sector than from the private sector?

The Government have it very much in mind that pay settlements in the public sector must reflect what is affordable. My hon. Friend may know that in 1986–87, the last year for which figures are available, earnings in the public sector rose by less than in the private sector. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the dramatic increase in productivity, because that meant that the private sector could afford more generous wage settlements. We have been very lucky with the dramatic increase in productivity in manufacturing industry.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on progress towards setting up the international monetary fund enhanced structural adjustment facility.

The enhanced structural adjustment facility of the IMF, designed to assist economic adjustment in the poorest countries, has now been set up and the first loans should be made shortly. The United Kingdom will contribute one sixth of the total funding of the interest subsidy on enhanced structural adjustment facility lending, which is the largest contribution of any country.

I warmly endorse my right hon. Friend's significant contribution to the development of policy, but can he say any more at this stage about his hopes of decisions from the Group of Seven meeting in Toronto?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. Following the initiative, which I launched over a year ago in Washington on behalf of the United Kingdom to help the very poorest of the most heavily indebted countries to adjust their economies by giving some concession on their loans provided that economic policies were sound, there has in recent months and indeed, weeks, been an increasing degree of support for one variant or another of this approach. I am now hopeful that at the economic summit in Toronto, which I shall be attending early next week, we shall be able to reach an agreement on positive action.

Will that amount of help to the poorest under-developed countries amount to £1,000 million? I use that figure because the Chancellor knows that when he assisted the banks to write off their debts against those countries that were slightly better off, that amounted to £1,000 million in tax relief. If the top four clearing banks in Britain plus Standard Chartered can get £1,000 million in tax relief, why can the Chancellor not write off £1,000 million against the debt of the poorest countries in the world?

The hon. Gentleman continues to get the wrong end of the stick. If a bank incurs bad or doubtful debts as a result of lending to anyone, whether a sovereign country or an industrial company, its profits are reduced and therefore the taxes it must pay are reduced. If, on the other hand, those debts are paid back, the profits increase and the taxes are then paid. It is as simple as that.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of economic output over the latest 12-month period for which figures are available.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of economic output over the latest 12 month period for which figures are available.

About 4½ per cent.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that good news. Will he take this opportunity to thank the British people for contributing to low inflation and low unit costs? Will he also warn them that high wage awards will undermine what has already been achieved? What will economic growth for the coming year be?

As for the last point, the forecast I made at the time of the Budget was that economic growth in 1988 would be 3 per cent. At present it looks as if it may be slightly more than that, but I have no new forecast to announce.

It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend said—or implied —that although we have put the right economic policies in place and have stuck to them consistently year in, year out over nine years, despite everything the Opposition have said, the real credit for the dramatic success of the British economy—the economic miracle was what the Financial Times called it only this morning—goes to British business and industry and to the British people for their response to the economic policies and framework that we have put in place.

Further to the congratulations that my right hon. Friend has extended to British industry and the British people, does he accept that these figures are another sign of the excellent management of the economy which he and our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have maintained?

I am happy, with all due modesty, to accept the tribute paid to the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

If, as Conservative Members who have spoken on this subject have alleged, and the Chancellor has reinforced, low wage settlements in industry are a main contributor to economic growth, why did Treasury Ministers and virtually all Tory Members who are present here today vote last summer for hon. Members to get a 20 per cent. pay rise? Would not an example have been a good idea?

I do not think that that had a great effect on the economy as a whole, but I should set the record straight. The advice that the Government originally gave to the House was for a considerably more modest increase in Members' salaries. It was the view of the House that the increase should be greater.

The Chancellor has predicted economic growth at 3 per cent. New credit growth was 9 per cent. in the first three months—an annual increase of 35 per cent. So we shall have 35 per cent. growth in credit and 3 per cent. growth in output. Is that just right, too much, or not enough?

Fortunately, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe in a planned economy so I do not have to answer that question. But I take from it an implicit endorsement of the recent increase in interest rates.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his policy towards the sterling exchange rate.

The exchange rate is a major factor in the determination of overall monetary conditions in the economy, which are set out to maintain downward pressure on inflation. Increases in domestic costs will not be accommodated by exchange rate depreciation.

Will my hon. Friend accept that British Aerospace, Jaguar, Pilkington—the profits of which have been announced today and are down £26 million because of the exchange rate deficit—and the CBI are not always wrong? Not allowing the pound to go too high is not accommodating inflation but accommodating manufacturing industry, which is the country's life blood, on which wealth depends.

The improvement that all those companies, and British industry as a whole have shown in recent years has been the result of improved management, improved labour relations, gaining control of inflation and a better competitive position. It would not have been achieved or helped by competitive depreciation of the pound. Ultimately, it would have been undermined.

Given that for most of last year an exchange rate of DM3 to the pound was considered unsustainable, given that the level is now DM3·13 and has been over DM3·10 for weeks, given that for the first four months of this year the balance of payments deficit was the worst ever, and given that the Chancellor has today revised his assessment of the balance of payments deficit for the rest of the year, what steps will the Government take to moderate and stabilise the exchange rate and help our exporters?

The hon. Gentleman's statement contains so many untruths and wrong facts that I should not be able to rebut them in the time available. As to the balance of payments, the policies necessary to curb inflation and maintain stability in exchange rates are precisely those that in the long term ensure equilibrium in the balance of payments.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 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 the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Will the right hon. Lady spare a little time to hear about Sonia Reading, who is a young heart patient in my constituency.—[Interruption.]

Order. This takes up time.

She has dissuaded her parents from raising funds for a private operation because that would he unfair to the 100 other children who are currently awaiting operations at the Birmingham children's hospital. Will the Prime Minister contrast that with her own approach—"I spend my money to go on the day I choose, at the time I choose and to the doctor I choose."? Which of those two approaches does she think is more inspired by St. Francis, who willingly embraced poverty for himself but was always mindful of the rights of others?

I wonder which the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks is better—to help to create more wealth so that there is more to spend on those in need and far more heart operations than there used to be? He knows as well as I do that when an operation is an emergency case, that operation will take priority. I understand that this was not an emergency case. I very recently visited Papworth hospital, which is absolutely superb in the heart operations that it does and is a great credit to the Health Service, as is this Government's record.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Wales are keenly looking forward to her visit tomorrow? She will find them in cheerful and buoyant mood following the package of measures announced by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for the regeneration of the Welsh valleys.

I thank my hon. Friend very much. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales' statement was a n excellent one. It was very welcome to Wales and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's handling of the economy has done excellent things for Wales, which has a very good standard of living.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether her espousal of Victorian and, more lately, aldermanic, morality extends. to the issuing of threats to Opposition parties who do not kow-tow to the Government line, to the effect that they may lose their money for research purposes to combat the politicisation of the Civil Service? Does her assertion of moral leadership over the West adapt President Kennedy's 1961 slogan to "Ich bin ein blackmailer"?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's allegations. With regard to what is called the Short money, the arrangements were announced to the House on 24 May 1988 and the Government will honour their commitments. With regard to President Kennedy, that is not a matter for which I am responsible in any way.

Since the majority of active IRA terrorists are known to the authorities and since, given the special nature of terrorism, the courts find it difficult to deliver them to justice, is it not time that we considered taking the players, as they are macabrely known, temporarily out of circulation? Deprivation of the liberty of the unconvicted is regrettable, but is it not a lesser evil than the slaughter of the innocents and the mourning, grief and bereavement that come after it?

I understand that my hon. Friend feels very strongly, as do all Members of the House, about the terrible atrocity in Lisburn, in Northern Ireland, yesterday, all the more since it was a charitable occasion in which families were taking part. It could have been even worse than it was. We would like to express sympathy, particularly with the bereaved families, and admiration for the armed services for the marvellous work they do, and also for the fact that they do go and help in these events in the community. My hon. Friend is asking really whether we would consider internment once again. This matter is kept under review, but I would be very, very reluctant to do so. It would be a very serious step to take. As he knows, we are constantly trying to improve all our defences against terrorism by trying to secure better co-operation from south of the border.

May I first agree with every single word that the Prime Minister used in that last reply?

Does the Prime Minister agree with the view of the Secretary of State for the Environment that people who believe that they should stop all development in their own areas are selfish? If she does take that view, what does she recommend as the cure for the "not in my back yard" attitude—the NIMBY syndrome—to which that same Secretary of State for the Environment now appears to have fallen victim? Does she think that the treatment should include putting him out to grass permanently?

With all the great issues in the world, the right hon. Gentleman never fails to surprise me with the smallness of some of his questions. [Interruption.] Of course one cannot stop development. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. Development has continued and will continue. There are 1·5 million more dwelling houses now than there used to he. Yes, we do try to protect the green belt. Yes, we do try to protect some of the land in the countryside. But development, in both town and country, there has to be, for the future of this country, and the thing is to see that it is the right development and, where it is in difficult areas, that it is in keeping with the development and the architecture of the area.

That was a strange answer from the Prime Minister. I thought that ministerial rectitude was still in fashion. Or is it the case that the Secretary of State for the Environment, like so many other members of the Government, keeps one set of values for display and another for use?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment does his work excellently and in a very distinguished way. Neither in intellect nor in performance can the right hon. Gentleman hold a candle to him.

I hear what the Prime Minister says. Does she not think that, as a general matter of conduct, people in glass houses should not throw stones and that Ministers in Gloucestershire rectories should practise what they preach, or stop preaching, or stop practising?

Yes, I do believe that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman takes his own advice.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and with the citizens of Belfast, to whom I paid a visit at the weekend, that the IRA draws comfort and encouragement for its dastardly acts, such as that perpetrated yesterday, from the fact that the citizens of Ulster may not vote red or blue but only green or orange, and that by fielding candidates from the main political parties we would signal to the IRA that that part of the United Kingdom is not up for grabs?

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but I do not think that that would be a solution to the very deep-seated problem. We have to do every single thing we can to defend all the people of Northern Ireland and to defeat the terrorism of the IRA, which shoots and bombs to kill.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

When will the right hon. Lady address her moral crusade to the pornographic telephone services? Is she aware that I have given evidence only this week to her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of a young girl working for one of the private telephone companies having to listen to a pervert masturbating on the telephone? Is this the sort of thing that the Prime Minister wants to ignore in the telephone service, or is the problem that it is too near to the flagship of a previous Parliament?

Of course not. There are already laws which are designed to stop that very thing. As a number of hon. Members said immediately, why not put the telephone down very quickly?

My right hon. Friend will know that today's unemployment figures show a dramatic drop once again, with the west midlands economy top of the league in creating new jobs. is this not further evidence that her economic policies are creating wealth, prosperity and a caring community, with over £9 billion a year raised by people for charitable works?

Yes. The unemployment figures today show another large, welcome drop, with the fall in unemployment in the north, the north-west and the west midlands being the greatest. They also give the welcome news that the increase in jobs in the calendar year 1987 was the greatest for a generation. We have a substantial increase in jobs, falling unemployment, a very good training scheme and an excellent economy.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the findings of last week's Glasgow Herald opinion poll, which showed that the political effect in Scotland of her visit to the Scottish cup final and her epistle to the Caledonians was to increase Scottish National party support to its highest level for 10 years? Will the Prime Minister demonstrate her extensive knowledge of Scottish affairs by reminding the House of the names of the Moderator of the General Assembly, which she addressed, and the captain of Celtic, to whom she presented the cup?

I had a very good day in Scotland. Whatever the hon. Gentleman tries to say, Scotland's economy and people are benefiting enormously from the way in which the Government are handling them.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

In a week when the Budget tax cuts will first be seen in pay packets throughout the nation, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's commitment to cut taxation still further? Will she contrast that with the Opposition's action in voting against the tax cuts recently, and their determination to reverse them?

It was an excellent Budget, the results of which will be felt in pay packets at the end of this week and this month. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said at the time, he has set a new target of a basic rate of 20p in the pound, when it is prudent to do that. It might be both prudent and wise to remind hon. Members that the Opposition voted against the cut in the basic rate from 27p to 25p and to remind people that, had the Labour regime's 33p in the pound basic rate still been in force, a man on average earnings would now be paying an extra £13 in tax every week. That is what Labour would have done—taken more out of the pockets of working people.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the behaviour of certain so-called English football supporters attending the European football championships in the Federal Republic of Germany.

With all Members of the House and the British people, I deplore the disgraceful scenes of violence in which so-called supporters of English football have been involved in West Germany this week. Over 200 hooligans from this country have been detained since Saturday.

I regret bitterly that so many German police have been needed and that the lives of people in Stuttgart, Cologne and Dusseldorf have been disrupted in this way by people from this country. The only positive aspect of this week's events has been the success of the measures taken to control the fans within the grounds at England's two matches in Stuttgart and Dusseldorf. My Department has co-operated with the football authorities and the police in both countries to bring about improvements in ground control. An estimated 5,000 England supporters are still in Germany, with tickets for Saturday's game against the Soviet Union and with travel arrangements linked to that game.

Clearly, more needs to be done to control football hooliganism, as the steps taken so far have been shown to be inadequate. A number of further measures have been proposed which the Government will look at and will discuss, where appropriate, with the football authorities. They include, as regards attendance at football matches abroad, considering whether courts might be given powers in the longer term to impose restrictions on overseas travel following conviction for an offence. At home matches, we shall consider and discuss with the football authorities the conditions for admission to football grounds, including national or club membership schemes. We shall also be considering the circumstances in which magistrates can control or restrict the sale of alcohol in the vicinity of sports grounds. We will be seeking a meeting with the football authorities within the next two weeks to discuss these matters and the future participation of national teams in international competitions.

I thank the Minister for his statement. We accept that the malaise affecting our country is extremely deep-seated. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is no good making football a scapegoat all the time? This is a law and order matter, and we hope to join the Government in doing what we can.

Is it not a fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was in Spain last week discussing hooliganism on beaches in that country'? Thank goodness the Government have not yet got around to blaming that on football. It, too, is evidence of this deep-seated malaise.

If the Government are to give the courts more power to stop known troublemakers from travelling abroad and besmirching this country's name, we shall support that. Will consideration be given to making it unlawful to desecrate the national flag'? No other country would stand for people misusing the national flag in the way in which the Union Jack is misused by some of these people, many with National Front connections. The racism attached to the taunting of coloured footballers is also a matter of considerable concern to us all.

We hope to discuss the importance of understanding the social purpose of sport, and I ask the Minister to appreciate that when local authorities are starved of money, when youngsters who ought to be attracted into sports centres are priced out of them, and when physical education is downgraded in the education curriculum, we are undermining the whole future of sport, as well as sport in our community.

I assure the Minister that Opposition Members want to do all they can to support the Government in a constructive approach. Finally, will he confirm that only last week the Football Association was congratulated by his Department on accepting and carrying out all the advice offered? That is an added reason why we should see this evil not as the fault of football, but rather as a social disease to which all of us must apply our minds.

On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, the football authorities, both the Football Association and the league, were congratulated on the work done with the police authorities and my Department to tackle problems inside the grounds in the build-up to the European championships. There is one exception to that. The Government very much regret that the FA decided to take tickets for the championships. I hope that it will decide against taking tickets for any future game in which the England team plays.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his offer of support on the law and order matters that he brought to the attention of the House. However, it is naive in the extreme to believe that the acts of violence in Stuttgart on Sunday and in Dusseldorf over the past 48 hours have been unrelated to the presence of the English football team in the European championships. Where England plays football overseas, criminally minded so-called supporters are besmirching our international reputation.

I assure my hon. Friend that Conservative Members' support for the action that he proposes is every bit as strong as that of Opposition Members. We are sick and tired of so-called English fans dragging the Union flag through the gutters of continental Europe. If the football authorities cannot stop that, my hon. Friend will have our full support in every action that he takes to do so.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that support. Suffice it to say that, while one would hope that in an ideal world the football authorities would take a very tough stance—not least in the domestic game—there has, regrettably, been much heel dragging in implementing the agreement that we reached with the football authorities in February last year. The time has now come, and, as I said, in the next two weeks all the measures that I have announced today will be considered in detail. We shall have specific discussions with the football authorities, and if necessary we shall come back to the House for its support in instituting a national membership scheme with legal backing.

Now that the Minster is aware of something that many of us have been telling him for some time—that the hooligan thugs who besmirched this country's name in Stuttgart and Dusseldorf are not football fans but hard-nosed criminals, as the Minister himself said—does he not recognise that it is Government action, not the action of the football authorities, that is paramount? Does he also recognise that such criminal acts take place throughout Europe, as was shown last week when many Dutch and German hooligan thugs were arrested? Will he take the initiative and call together the European Sports Ministers and the European Home Ministers to find a common approach to a common law and order problem? Will he reiterate that he will take with him the football authorities in any future action if those authorities have to implement his measures?

It is indeed the case that the problems of football hooliganism that we are experiencing in this country are also being experienced internationally—not least in Germany, Holland and Italy. The scenes that I witnessed last night, in which more than 200 Germans were arrested, reflected that fact. It is regrettable that the problems that we are seeing with hooligan behaviour in and around football grounds cannot be divorced from the fact that the English team is playing. It remains a fact that the games are providing a target for thugs. Therefore, we must take action on two fronts: we must continue to contain the problem within the grounds and do further work, and we must pursue a range of judicial measures, which I have announced today, and which we shall discuss in a European context in the coming months.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the nation is deeply shamed by the behaviour of hooligans abroad, and I hope that we can accept the word of the football authorities that these people are truly nothing to do with the real sport of football. If that is the case, they should be isolated from the game of football. The Football League has been recommended by its advisers to put in place as soon as possible a membership scheme that will isolate people who are not true football supporters. May we have a guarantee from my hon. Friend the Minister and from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that they will press the football authorities to put in place as soon as possible a membership scheme?

The partial membership schemes that have been in place before and since the February 1987 agreement have not achieved the desired results expressed today by my hon. Friend. For that reason, it is essential that, as a matter of urgency, we assess whether a comprehensive national membership scheme can be put in place as soon as possible. That would be high on the agenda with the football authorities. Only then can we identify each and every person who goes to football matches, and thereby, we hope, remove membership cards from people who have caused problems. We need deterrents against hooliganism, and existing membership schemes are, regrettably, ineffective.

I have the same sense of disgust and despair as the Minister about the events in Germany over the past week. Does he accept that it is not football that is the cause of hooliganism, but football that has become a vehicle for it? Will he ensure that whatever steps the Government take they will not prejudice the rights of the millions of law-abiding citizens who watch football every week throughout the United Kingdom, who should be entitled to do so and who should certainly be entitled to follow their national teams abroad if they choose?

The vast majority of individuals who enjoy football in this country and abroad attend matches without any intention of causing damage or behaving like the louts that we have seen in downtown areas of West Germany during the past five days. It is a fact of life that, to deter those louts, both inside and outside the grounds, we must put in place a comprehensive package of measures that is tougher than the voluntary one so far agreed. It is the Government's intention, both domestically and internationally, to pursue that target, because it is not satisfactory simply to divorce football from the hooligan element that we have seen follow it around the continent and during the domestic season.

While assuring my hon. Friend of our full support for any effective measures he takes to deal with football hooliganism. may I ask whether he agrees that there is a need for action not merely on two but on three fronts? Hooliganism is not restricted to football. if my hon. Friend reads the newspapers every weekend, he will realise that towns up and down the country are being desecrated by mobs of young hooligans fuelled with alcohol, that police officers are being injured and that the police service is worried about the problem. Does he agree that there is a dire need to take effective action, not to loosen the licensing laws, but to tighten them?

I agree with my right hon. Friend's comments. For those very reasons, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is addressing himself to a number of issues in his area of responsibility, particularly those relating to the licensing laws and the availability of drink. He mentioned these issues today at a press conference and they were emphasised in my opening statement. We a re concerned, first and foremost, in this private notice question with the availability of drink, which has done so much damage around football grounds. It is interesting to note that the smallest number of incidents occurred last night, which was the only night when the town centre was kept dry for the football match.

Is the Minister aware that the inquiry into events at Stamford Bridge on 28 May after the Middlesbrough-Chelsea game is now under review by the Football Association? Will he confirm the receipt of a series of letters from my constituents to the management of Chelsea football club, alleging that there was no segregation at the ground, that alcohol was freely available and that the police had little regard for the safety of Middlesbrough supporters? Will he pass that file to the Football Association so that it can take that into account and refute or confirm the allegations?

A number of the points made by the hon. Gentleman and his constituents have been brought to the attention of the Football Association. I regret that t he urgent report requested from the football authorities following that ugly incident at the end of the season is still not forthcoming and that the latest assessment by the football authorities has been adjourned and deferred once again. When there is a major incident such as that, that sort of heel dragging is unacceptable. and the football authorities need to ensure that they have a firm grip on such incidents and that they take appropriate action, which they have not done to date.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is strong police evidence that the National Front has infiltrated English football supporters clubs and is corrupting and enticing quite a few decent supporters to undermine society? That is smearing our businesses and holidaymakers abroad. We have a Prime Minister who has made us proud to be British. Let us keep it that way. I have been ashamed to be British during the past three days, and incidents of the kind that we are discussing must be stopped.

I hear loud and clear my hon. Friend's strength of feeling and I recognise, as does everybody associated with the football world, that extreme political wings have been associated with much of the organised vandalism and incidents connected with football. It is abhorrent that racial abuse has been associated with that; I share the view of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) about the appalling incidents of racial abuse that have been associated with that extreme political wing. We must do everything that we can to ensure that they do not happen again.

Does the Minister accept that the main burden of his remarks relate to the behaviour of English supporters? Without in any way wanting to display a holier-than-thou attitude, I hope that he will take these comments from one who has been a football supporter for more than 50 years and has attended gatherings that were better behaved than those on the Terrace of the House of Commons at present, at Hampden park, with over 100,000 people, at Ibrox park, with over 100,000 people and at Wembley stadium, with over 100,000 people. At that time there was a great deal of social cohesion. What is wrong within society is not a problem for football. We should be fighting for the preservation of football as a spectator sport, and we should therefore all unite in condemning bad behaviour and in supporting the action of clubs and the football associations in trying to stamp that out.

It is important to recognise that many football clubs have taken determined action in recent years to try to stamp out the hooliganism that has been associated with the national game. It is also important to recognise that every club that drags its feet on the issue is also dragging down the national game and those who have worked so hard for it. I regret that too many have dragged their feet. Closed circuit television should have been in every ground months, if not a year, ago. I confirm that the main problem overseas has involved alleged English supporters.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his strong views on this matter and on his resolve to put it right. Düsseldorf was a disaster for the country, but we should remember the England v. Scotland game, and the riots at Middlesborough v. Chelsea, when people were appalled by what they saw. Is my hon. Friend aware of the one club that has produced a 100 per cent. membership scheme? Is he aware that three seasons ago there were 115 arrests and seven stabbings? Over the past two seasons and 80 league games there has not been one arrest or stabbing at the ground. In tennis terms, is that not 6–0, 6–0, 6–0 for the introduction of a national identity scheme, which overnight would show the Football Association and the Football league that they have abdicated responsibility for the safety of the game? No matter how reluctant the Government may be, they must accept the responsibility to preserve the national game and look after the people who live near football clubs.

I praise Luton Town football club for its tough and determined action on this issue and for implementing a scheme that has had undoubted success for the town and the club. It is regrettable that the Football Association and the league have not warmly welcomed the initiative taken at Luton. If they do not fast realise that the lesson learned at Luton Town, which if extended nationwide would lead to a nationwide membership scheme, is the right way forward, then the Government will have to show them the way forward.

Has the Minister seen a report this week by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which was outlined in The Times, which states that this is a law and order problem and that football is the victim? To say that the clubs are not doing enough to protect themselves is like saying that women do not do enough to protect themselves against rape. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last weekend, miles from a football match, 200 drunken youths ran riot in St. Ives in Cambridgeshire, five policemen were beaten up in rural Andover, and two more were beaten up in Newbury? We have the Notting Hill carnival and new year's eve celebrations. Is he aware that 272 Britons are in gaol in Spain and that this is a law and order problem, not among deprived dole queue kids, but of the "Loadsamoney" mentality created by the Government? The Minister praises Luton Town football club, but why will he not stop the passports? That is the membership card. That would stop the fans travelling to Germany.

If the hon. Gentleman feels that this is in no way a football problem, he should take cognisance of those who attended the Scarborough v. Wolverhampton Wanderers game on 15 August last year, those who went to the QPR v. Chelsea game, those who saw the Arsenal v. Millwall game on 9 January or those who witnessed the appalling incidents inside the gates at Chelsea at the end of the season. Football clubs must take tough and determined action. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must take action inside the grounds, which is primarily a matter for the football authorities, and outside the grounds.

It is impracticable under current circumstances to take away passports to achieve the hon. Gentleman's goal, but it may not be impractical when the computerised system is introduced within the next two years. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his announcement earlier today, which I have repeated. As foolproof a national membership scheme as possible would also help considerably to identify potential troublemakers and ban them from grounds.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is now no technical or practical reason why there should not be created on a self-financing basis in this country a proper membership system for those who attend football matches? The main reason for creating such a system is to protect the overwhelming majority of decent people who wish to go to matches in peace. As to supporters going overseas, until British football shows some real initiative in resolving the problem, should it not be made clear that its clubs are not welcome elsewhere in Europe?

On my hon. Friend's latter question, I was glad to note today that the FA and the league have decided to withdraw their application for English clubs to be readmitted to European competition. I agree with my hon. Friend's first point and only wish that the football authorities would do the job. They are the people who are meant to run, and ought to run, football, and it should not be left to the House and the Government to intervene. I regret that it looks as though we will have to do so.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the murder of six soldiers in Lisburn yesterday evening.

For the past six years the Lisburn borough council, in conjunction with the YMCA, has organised a series of charitable running events consisting of a half marathon together with shorter fun runs. This year some 4,500 people took part, more than half of them teenagers and young children.

Shortly after the end of the run, a bomb destroyed a Ford Transit van in which six soldiers were travelling. Four were killed instantly, one died on his way to hospital, and the sixth died in hospital last night. Eleven civilians, including an 80-year-old man and a two-year-old child, were injured, but all have now been released from hospital. The soldiers killed were a sergeant, two lance-corporals and a signaller from the Royal Signals; a corporal from the Green Howards; and a lance-corporal in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps. Next of kin have been informed. All six had come from Ebrington barracks in Londonderry, and were giving of their own time to help in an event which over the years has raised very many thousands of pounds for deserving charities.

I know that the House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the families and friends of those brutally murdered last night

My understanding is that the soldiers concerned travelled in the Transit van from Londonderry to Lisburn, and parked it unattended in the leisure centre car park, the start and finish point of the runs. Five of the soldiers took part in the marathon, which started at 6.30 pm. One took part in the fun run. While it is not clear when they finished running, it is believed that the van left the car park at 8.50 pm, and the explosion occurred at 8.59 pm. The evidence indicates that the explosive device had been attached to the underside of the van and consisted of some 3 kg of commercial explosive.

I must tell the House that, while the murders of the soldiers are horrific enough, there could well have been fatalities and casualties on a vastly greater scale if the bomb had gone off in the car park itself, where thousands of people were milling around, including a considerable number of families with young children.

What that indicates is that the IRA has no depths to which it will not sink in its determination to kill, no occasion, whether it be a remembrance service or a charitable event, which it will not attack, nor the slightest concern as to how many people of all ages—men, women and children—it may murder and maim in its vile activities.

What we face in Northern Ireland at present is the ruthless efforts of the IRA to intensify its vicious and bloody campaign. The Chief Constable gave clear warning of that, and the evidence of the arms shipments from Libya was further confirmation of the lengths to which the terrorists will go.

If civilised society is to survive, whether in Northern Ireland alone or in the whole island of Ireland, there can be no place for terrorism. We have no choice but to do all in our power to thwart and ultimately to defeat the terrorist—and in thwarting the terrorist we need the maximum vigilance and alertness.

The end of terrorism has to be our aim, and while there is no short cut, we must employ all the resources that a democracy can bring to bear, the commitment of Government and Parliament, the skill and courage of the security forces, the whole-hearted support and assistance of the whole community in ensuring that the men of violence are brought to justice and, in addition, the fullest co-operation and support from the Government and people of the Irish Republic.

All those we need; and the events of last night not only in what did happen, awful as they certainly were, but also in what so easily might have happened as well, are the clearest message why we must not fail.

It is again with sadness that I come to the Dispatch Box following a statement by the Secretary of State. Too often in the past 20 years have successive Secretaries of State and their Opposition counterparts had to respond to brutal acts of callous inhumanity. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said on behalf of Opposition Members, the sympathies and condolences of us all, and indeed of all right-thinking people in the country, go to the families of the bereaved and injured.

The tragedy of the situation in Northern Ireland is the waste of yet more lives, this time of men who had just voluntarily given up their free time to help the local community in its charitable endeavours.

The Secretary of State has given us details of the facts of the fatal events of yesterday evening. If any solace can be found in the midst of such a terrible tragedy it must be that the devastation and loss of life was not on the scale of the Enniskillen remembrance day bomb.

But we were told that Enniskillen was a mistake. Last night was no mistake. The lives of men, women and children were coldly and deliberately put at risk. But for the grace of God it would have been another Enniskillen writ large.

The lack of warning, as well as the very act of placing the bomb, showed the men of violence for what they are —indifferent to life and devoid of any feelings of humanity. It was a deliberate act of sectarian provocation, taking place as it did in a staunchly Unionist town, which is also the garrison headquarters of the Army. Taking place, as it did, shortly before the onset of the marching season, it can only have been designed to heighten sectarian tension. We must hope that it does not lead to a spate of further tit-for-tat reprisals, for that is not the way.

A number of serious questions have to be asked about security. The Secretary of State has told us that the six young men killed were off-duty soldiers in civilian clothing in an unmarked van, beneath which was placed a bomb, the van having been parked in a public place. Until investigations are completed, we shall not know the exact type of device used. However, we are entitled to ask how any device could be placed when, in the aftermath of the killings at Andersonstown, we were told that all security personnel had been issued with warnings to be on the alert, quite apart from the normal security arrangements for personal safety.

When was the van last searched, if trained soldiers felt that it was unnecessary to look beneath it? Why was the van not parked in a more secure place, if it was owned by the military? Were any instructions given to that effect, bearing in mind that, as we now know and as the security forces probably then knew, the IRA can identify plain-clothes soldiers in unmarked vans, on this occasion trailing them all the way from Derry? What sort of surveillance is used when soldiers are taking part in civilian activities of this kind, difficult though it must be? If, as we have been told, commercial explosives were used, do we know yet whence they came?

Finally, I want to deal with the calls for action that have been made in the wake of the bombing. Some have already called for the return of internment or selective detention as a way to rid the streets of potential bombers and gunners. But, as the Prime Minister seemed to say earlier, that is precisely the response that the IRA would like. The Opposition reject those calls directly and immediately.

The recent history of internment in Northern Ireland shows that it is ineffective. It provides men of violence with propaganda and it is a fertile area for recruitment. Its return could only serve further to heighten tension, to increase social instability and to push the likelihood of any political solution that much further away.

As the Secretary of State said, there are no easy short cuts, just a long hard haul. The way forward in Northern Ireland is to support the security forces in upholding the rule of law, by strengthening the democratic constitutional structures, thus weakening the case of the gunmen, and to show that the ballot box alone is the way to achieve lasting peace on the island of Ireland.

The firm adherence of the Secretary of State to the Anglo-Irish Agreement should be supported. It should not be forgotten that the perpetrators of this outrage are as committed to the destruction of the Anglo-Irish Agreement as they were to the destruction of that of Sunningdale. The paramilitaries cannot be allowed to dictate to the House and to our country, or to Northern Ireland or to the Republic, the political agenda.

The Opposition reaffirm their support for that agreement. We reject the knee-jerk calls for the introduction of repressive measures. The defeat of men of violence can be brought about only by the support for the security forces and adherence to the rule of law, with equality before it for all. It is by those means that the forces of democracy, despite the temptation to despair and such heartbreaking setbacks as last night, will eventually prevail.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I particularly appreciate his clear and unequivocal call for full support for the security forces in the tasks that they have to undertake. At a time like this, above all, we are conscious of the tremendous contribution they make, the tremendous strains that are undoubtedly placed upon them and the need for them at all times to demonstrate the greatest alertness and vigilance that is necessary if we are to thwart the evil acts of terrorism.

On the particularly detailed questions that the hon. Gentleman asked about the type of explosive, further information is likely to become available on that shortly, and I cannot comment further today. However, he will have noted my comment that, on the evidence available to me, that bomb could have gone off in the car park with the consequences that I described.

The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to young men who had given of their free time to make a contribution to the community in which they were serving. I am conscious that some of those same young men were people whom people in the Nationalist community were proud to praise when they turned out in the floods at Strabane to help them through their difficulties at that time when the Army did valiant work. There is no question but that the Army does much for the community in Northern Ireland, for which everybody in Northern Ireland should be grateful. But at the same time we must be concerned about procedures and their security and what is possible for them. The Army takes those matters seriously, and I know that it will be reviewing the situation.

The hon. Gentleman heard, as did the House, the clear response that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on the introduction of selective detention, which it is important to recognise. I would only add that we have specifically retained that power within the legislation, were it thought desirable to take that course. But, as my right hon. Friend made clear, there are many considerations, many deeply difficult implications, that have to be considered in that respect. We keep the matter under review. We have no further comment to make at this stage.

Now that the mother of Parliaments has got round to moving from the subject of the stabbing of six footballers to that of the murder of six soldiers, no doubt the general public will wonder whether we have got our priorities right.

May I associate my constituents in the borough of Lisburn with the expressions of sympathy for the relatives of the dead soldiers? May I also ask, however, whether the Secretary of State understands that that sympathy will be tinged with considerable bitterness? My constituents remember the signing three years ago of an Anglo-Irish Agreement which promised peace, stability and reconciliation. Out of respect for those who have been murdered, and for those of us who are yet to be murdered, will the Secretary of State give instructions that that wholly false claim and promise should never be repeated?

The right hon. Gentleman may understand on reflection why, although I recognise that the outrage occurred in his constituency, I am somewhat disappointed in his contribution.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's endless repetition of his concern about the phrase, let me say that he will have noted from my statement that in talking about "peace, stability and reconciliation" in the Province, I referred to arms shipments which we have good reason to believe came from Libya. He will know that those shipments started to come well before the signing of the Hillsborough agreement, and that this is a sign of the growing threat that the security forces are facing very bravely. I should have hoped that he would include in his remarks a tribute to all those who serve in his constituency, many of whom come from every other constituency in the land and some of whom lost their lives in the incident last night. They have gone there to support people of good will and integrity in Northern Ireland, which they are proud to do.

It ill becomes the Secretary of State to criticise what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) has said. The Unionist people have not only given their sympathy; they have given their support to all the security forces. Those whom the Secretary of State thought he would bring with him in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the members of the SDLP, will not call for people to join the Army today; they will not call for people to join the UDR today; they will not call for people to join the police today.

The Secretary of State must face up to the fact—as must the House, although I know that it is not a popular thing to say on this occasion—that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has not brought peace; it has not brought stability; it has not brought reconciliation. [Interruption.] We live there. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) does not. He does not follow the coffins; he does not meet the widows and the orphans. He should shut his mouth until he meets the orphans, the widows, the people who sorrow.

The hon. Gentleman, sitting on his backside in his Gangway seat, has never followed a coffin in Northern Ireland. He has never put his hand on the curly head of a little girl or boy who will have no father, no mother and no succour from a father or mother. The hon. Gentleman had better recognise that it is an evil thing that we are fighting in Northern Ireland.

If the House thinks that we have to take these constant killings, let me say that we sympathise so sincerely with those who have been bereaved because we have walked that way ourselves. We have been down in the valley, and we have shed the same tears as they will be shedding. We know what this is about.

It seemed to be easy to identify the unmarked van. Will the Secretary of State start an immediate investigation into the civilian personnel who work in the Londonderry barracks? Someone there put his finger on that van, and it is the duty of the Secretary of State to find out who it was.

Furthermore, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the vehicle ought not to have been parked in a public car park? Will he give instructions in future that such unmarked vehicles should never again be parked in a public place but must be parked under Army surveillance? When he has obtained the details, will he also take into consideration the type of bomb that was used, and warn Army personnel that that type of bomb could be used again and could bring about more murders in the Army?

The people in Northern Ireland today are incensed that members of the SDLP are continuing their talks with the godfathers of the men who planted the bomb. That is resented by the right-thinking people of Ulster.

I hope that the House agrees that we owe it to the memory of those who lost their lives last night to do all that we can not to spread dissension, division and bitterness in the House, but to pledge ourselves to work together with all the constitutional parties to start building some harmony and co-operation, and not always seek to exploit the resentments and difficulties.

In answer to the last point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I have made absolutely clear my utter abhorrence of all who espouse violence or who fail to denounce it. I wish to see the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland sitting down, without inhibition and without any preconditions, to establish whether they can play their part in starting to build a rather better and more constructive future.

The hon. Gentleman raised a specific point about the van and the issues arising in connection with the journey, the parking and the lack of attendance. I spoke to the GOC in Lisburn this morning about that. It is a matter of concern to the Army, which is at present reviewing its arrangements. The points that the hon. Gentleman has raised will be very much in the minds of Army personnel.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, while I look forward to the arrest of the perpetrators of yesterday's crime, I do not think that it will stop the violence in the Province? Nor would internment. As we have just heard in the expressions of strong feelings, the problem of Northern Ireland is not just a security matter; it lies far deeper than that.

May I ask two questions? The first is about explosives. The Secretary of State has said that he will have more information later today about the nature of the explosives used. Are we satisfied that in co-operation with the South— not through the Anglo-Irish Agreement; there has been co-operation over the years—we know the source of the Semtex and the route that it takes through the Province? Are the security forces in the South aware of the problems that arise because of the movement of this high explosive?

My second question is about soldiers. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) mentioned the lack of security for off-duty soldiers. There is a feeling that there are too many non-operational soldiers in Northern Ireland, and that the guarding of those soldiers poses a problem not only for the Army but for the police.

The right hon. Gentleman's first point is enormously important. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the lion. Member for Antrim, North both referred to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I entirely understand the political attitudes about it, but some can read into those comments the idea that we should not work as closely as we can in co-operation with the South.

I am glad to hear confirmation from the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that he recognises, as any sensible person must—and as I said in my statement—that one of the four preconditions for success must be the full commitment and co-operation of the Government and people of the Republic of Ireland. In the long run—and perhaps not all that long a run either —terrorism could be as big a threat to the Republic as it now is to Northern Ireland.

It is believed that a commercial explosive was used—not Semtex, which might be defined as a military explosive. As I said in my statement, 3 kg of commercial explosive was used. Because of the additional resources that have been made available through the assistance of the Libyan Government, there is no doubt that within the island of Ireland very significant resources of weapons, ammunition and explosives are available. That is why we must have the close co-operation and commitment of the Irish Government, the security forces and the people, together with our own efforts in every possible respect, so that those weapons of evil, destruction, tragedy and death are recovered at the earliest possible opportunity.

We welcome what has been said about this atrocity by Mr. Haughey, but do we not now have the right to expect words to be matched by deeds and a success to be made of the extradition arrangements? Although the last internment was excessive and incompetent, will my right hon. Friend and the Government at least not rule out highly selective detention before they have discussed it with the Government of the Irish Republic, with a view to simultaneous action on both sides of the border?

It is very important that we should have effective extradition arrangements. I have made clear my views about that. We are continually striving to improve the effectiveness of security co-operation. I know that the House would not wish to ignore the fact that we appreciate the significant arms, weapons and explosives recoveries that have been made in the South by the Garda. We are grateful for their successes as well as for the very significant successes of the security forces. It would be quite wrong not to appreciate that at this very moment the IRA is trying to intensify a vicious campaign and that there have been a number of successful efforts by the security forces that have frustrated or thwarted the IRA. I am having to report, sadly, to the House today an occasion when the IRA was not thwarted, but it would be wrong not to pay tribute to some very real achievements in recent months by the security forces.

We do not rule out the possibility of selective detention. I said in my statement that I have kept that power available in case it is thought appropriate to use it. At the same time, I made it clear to the House that there could be very real problems. My hon. Friend referred to very selective detention. On a previous occasion he referred to selective detention as the recruting sergeant of the IRA. We have to consider responsibly those kinds of consideration and decide whether they would help or damage the fight against terrorism; but we keep these matters under review.

In expressing my condemnation and absolute abhorrence of this act, and in expressing also my sympathy to the relatives of those who were killed, may I say without equivocation that I believe that there should be no hiding place for those who carried out this act and that anybody who has any information about it should make it available to the police so that those who perpetrated this act can be caught and brought to justice?

I ask the Secretary of State to end, please, the speculation about selective internment. Internment can never be selective. That is one of the lessons that we have learnt. It is not possible to have selective internment. Will he bear in mind that we had selective internment in the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s and that the problem is still with us? Since the day and hour that the Northern Irish state was formed, the empirical evidence has been that, if we want to give a fillip and an impetus to terrorism, the way to go about it is to introduce internment in any shape or form.

I think that some would argue with the hon. Gentleman's historical analysis. They might argue that on certain occasions selective internment was used effectively. I recall that it was used effectively not merely in Northern Ireland but also in the Republic of Ireland. However, I am conscious of the other aspect of the problem that the hon. Gentleman raised and to which I referred earlier, but I have nothing further to add on that point.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's absolutely unequivocal statement. I hope that it will be heard and listened to in the quarters where his words carry weight. It is tragic to consider the deaths that have occurred in Northern Ireland, not just because of the number but because of the number of young lives across both communities from every sort of background. They are tragic because they are so pointless. It is tragic that lives have been lost, to the achievement of no end, by the security forces bravely defending communities and by terrorists who have achieved nothing. For all those reasons, we must bring about an end to violence in the island of Ireland.

Does my right hon. Friend share the edification that many of us feel that at least this tragedy has been condemned by Members in almost all parts of the House? We hope that the message will go out that there has been universal condemnation by this House of what happened. Does my right hon. Friend agree that now is perhaps the time to mount a propaganda or a dissemination of knowledge campaign on an international basis about the viciousness of the IRA so as to dry up the supplies of treasure and money that are coming from misguided people in other parts of the world?

Yes, Sir. I believe that that is an important part of the total approach that we must seek to adopt to defeat terrorism. I have already said that there is no single, quick answer to the problem, and the House understands that perfectly well. We are determined to tackle every possible aspect that we can, whether it be more accurate information or the relaunch of the confidential telephone. That is one small contribution to the fight against terrorism, but it is already making a significant contribution by enlisting the support of the community in the fight against terrorism. The new arrangements for the security forces, the changes in the legislation that we are introducing, and the impact on racketeering by trying to tackle the sources of funds for terrorism are among the issues that we are tackling right across the board in our determination steadily to tighten the net around the terrorists.

Will the Secretary of State note that my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to be associated with the tribute that he has paid to the men who lost their lives and with the sympathy that he has expressed for their families? Now that the IRA has turned its attention from the cenotaph to a sporting event for what must have been the first time, is it not evident that there is no innocent man, woman or child in Northern Ireland who is not potentially on its hit list and that this fact ought to be recognised around the world?

Does the Secretary of State think that the natural conclusion to draw from what has happened is that one cannot dismantle any of the mechanisms upon which could be built closer co-operation? The failure of co-operation so far, such as the chaos around the extradition arrangements, must have been music in the ears of these murderers. Does he not think that we ought to strengthen rather than weaken security co-operation?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. It is not necessarily a fact that men, women and children of all ages are now on the IRA's hit list. They are probably not on its hit list, but the IRA is so terribly callous that it could not care less if men, women and children happened to be on the hit list when it was in the process of committing other atrocities.

The hon. Gentleman also said that argument and division in this House are music to the ears of the terrorists. IRA terrorists want to exploit any resentments that can be built up between Northern Ireland and the Republic. It wants the agreement smashed and confusion to reign. Our job is to build up constructive co-operation and to stand together steadfastly against the terrorist.

Does the Secretary of State accept that those who elected me to the House unreservedly condemn the vicious and brutal murder yesterday evening of six soldiers in Lisburn? I offer my sympathy and that of my constituents to those families who are enduring great sorrow.

Does the Secretary of State also accept that we, as a United Kingdom, owe a tremendous debt to all members of the security forces who stand between us and the vicious attacks of the IRA, and that those members of the security forces deserve our unreserved support in their fight against terrorism? Is it not to be deplored that when the security forces are effective against terrorists, there seems to be a hue and cry from certain quarters, even in the House, and demands for inquiries into why the security forces have been so effective?

Will the Secretary of State address his mind to the fact that the members of the Unionist family give their support to the security forces, but is it not time that we heard from the SDLP a condemnation of this act? Will the Secretary of State ask the SDLP, and allow it to answer in the House, whether it unreservedly supports the security forces in their fight against terrorism?

Is the Secretary of State suggesting to the House that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is the price of co-operation with the South of Ireland in the fight against terrorists? Is the Secretary of State really saying that, if the Anglo-Irish Agreement had not been brought into existence, the Government of southern Ireland would not take any offensive against the IRA? That would be a condemnation of any country. The Prime Minister of that country was a former gun runner. The facts speak for themselves. I ask the Secretary of State to accept that the people of Ulster appreciate the great value of the security forces. We should give our support to any effective, aggressive measures against terrorists.

I had better say to the hon. Member that I hear what he says. I should have hoped that, instead of seeking to emphasise yet again his dislike, for whatever justifiable or unjustifiable reasons of the SDLP or of the Irish Government, he could have noted that on occasions I have criticised the SDLP for not being as forthright as I would wish in its public statements of support for the security forces, but the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has made it absolutely clear today, forthrightly and without equivocation, in what he said. I welcome that and hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) will welcome it. I hope that he will seek to encourage that co-operation with the Republic of Ireland, which is absolutely vital in the fight against terrorism.

Does the Secretary of State understand that, while he welcomes the statement of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), people in Northern Ireland will see that statement in the context of the ongoing talks that the hon. Gentleman has with Sinn Fein, which, in the Secretary of State's own words, is indistinguishable from the people who planted the bomb under the van last night? Does the Secretary of State agree that there is not really much point in hon. Members engaging in a competition to find stronger words of condemnation or criticism of the terrorists? That is probably what they want us to do. Why does he not do all in his power to thwart terrorists? Why does he not announce today the removal of the automatic right to 50 per cent remission for people convicted of terrorist offences? That would send a stronger message to the terrorists this afternoon than all the words that we have uttered together.

I have made clear my views about Sinn Fein, and I do not resile from anything that I have said. The hon. Gentleman has quoted some of my remarks. I certainly believe that the talks that are taking place at present, in so far as they are now inhibiting the chance of talks between the constitutional parties, are a major disadvantage, about which I have the greatest concern.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no point in bandying across the Chamber words of ever greater condemnation. I hope that he will realise that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I are engaged in the most comprehensive approach to the matters that he raised. I shall not talk about them in detail. We keep under review every aspect of ways in which we might intensify and make more effective the fight against terrorism.

Nothing is barred from that review. We have considered some of the matters which have been raised. We do not consider them appropriate at present, but I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that we are examining every single aspect. A further step forward which may be helpful to the security forces in the matter of evidence will come before the House this evening in the Criminal Justice Bill, and I hope the House will support it.

After this latest bombing tragedy, many of us are bound to recall that recently a suspected bomber was not extradited to Northern Ireland. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, at ministerial meetings under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, British Ministers can and do question the competence of sections of the Irish judiciary and sections of the Irish Ministry of Justice?

My hon. Friend, in his usual gentle way, is leading me into extremely difficult country. We certainly have made clear our full concerns about extradition. The judiciary in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland are independent and obviously must take responsibility for their decisions. However, I am most anxious, in so far as it lies within my power—and I know the absolute commitment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General—to seek to ensure that we have effective extradition between our two countries.

I recognise the need for the ritual condemnation of violence in Northern Ireland and the tired message of the Secretary of State, who keeps coming back to the House mouthing the same old platitudes, but is it not time for a completely new political initiative? Is not one of the problems the fact that the Government are hemmed in by statements and undertakings given by the Prime Minister on successive occasions to Ulster Unionists in this Chamber? That is why we are now stuck in this logjam.

As the only hon. Member in this House to get up and start talking about tired old messages and the same old platitudes, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) takes the biscuit.

When my right hon. Friend is considering the possibility of introducing selective detention, will he take account of the fact that those who, perhaps by coincidence, are the most republican in their sympathies, are the strongest in their opposition? At the very least, there is the possibility that, had there been an effective policy of selective detention, those who perpetrated yesterday's outrage would not have been at large.

One of the questions is whether, had there been such a policy, there would have been more or fewer people available to commit such outrages. I heard my hon. Friend put his question about the choice to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He asked whether, if a choice was to be made, and if it meant saving lives, that was not a choice in which a few scruples had to be buried. But is that the choice, or is the choice that that decision could lead to even more lives being lost? The history of this matter has been rehearsed, and I have already disagreed with my hon. Friend, but those are the honest considerations that have to be faced.

I say absolutely clearly, because part of what my hon. Friend said is correct, that there is clearer intelligence. There is a better understanding of some of the people who are involved in terrorism, but there is great difficulty in bringing forward the evidence which will enable convictions to be achieved. There are considerations that have to be borne in mind. I hope that it will be clear to my hon. Friend that I take clearly and seriously the points that he has made.

Will the Secretary of State clarify what he said to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) about American money? Is it not true that in downtown Boston and elsewhere, and encouraged by one of the candidates in the American election campaign—at least by his attitude to Northern Ireland—more and more American money is likely to be collected?

May I gently ask whether, if there had still been national service in this country, any of us really think that the British Army would still be in Northern Ireland? How do well-intentioned, high-minded, good-willed Englishmen such as the Secretary of State think that the Army will ever solve the historic problems of Ireland?

I do not think that I shall go into the last part of that question. I am not sure that I agree with it, and I would need to think about it.

Although elements in the United States are still fighting the old battles and seeking to stir up all the old hatred and bitterness, many other elements there are now trying to divert the understandable loyalty and affection for Ireland into much more responsible channels. This evening in Northern Ireland I shall be meeting representatives of the American Ireland Fund, incorporating the Ireland Fund of Canada, and some hon. Members will meet them next week. In such groups responsible American leaders are encouraging the channeling of the understandable and thoroughly praiseworthy affection for Ireland that is felt by so many people in America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia into these funds and into responsible hands, not into the hands of terrorists.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that even those who believe that the Government's present Northern Ireland policy is mistaken admire his personal bearing in Lisburn this morning and the way in which he has carried out his melancholy duty here this afternoon?

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks from a position of absolute principle and integrity.

Does the Secretary of State recollect his response to the leader of the Ulster Unionists? Does he acknowledge that the people of the kingdom on Armistice day have taken note that the leader of the Ulster Unionists is the only leader of a parliamentary party here wearing medals of service in Her Majesty's forces? Will he bear in mind that the sacrifices in the Ulster battle are borne primarily by the people in Northern Ireland? I acknowledge wholeheartedly the sacrifice of those who have come from Scotland, England and Wales to serve there, some of whom are my cousins. However, I deprecate the occasional implication that Ulster Unionists are criticising the security forces.

I ask the Secretary of State to give us some guidance on whether an appeal to the whole community is realistic, given that at least 10 per cent. of that community backs Sinn Fein and the IRA.

Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman now tell us how the Government are hitting the resources of terrorism? I am not thinking specifically of aid from America, but of how terrorists milk public money and engage in robbery and other such activities.

Thirdly, is not one of the real obstacles to the implementation of the law that allows selective detention the fact that the Republic of Ireland Government are not in a position to co-operate with the British Government in the internment of Irish subjects?

I am not sure why not. Historically, there have been occasions when the Irish Government have pursued that policy, but I have nothing further to add to that. It is a matter for them.

In the cut and thrust of exchange across the Chamber, and in my disappointment at the contribution of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), I in no way sought to disparage his patriotism or service. I am aware that some of us have served in the armed forces in one way or another, and I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's contribution. I did not want to make disparaging comments about him.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the approach of the security forces, from wherever they come to fight terrorism in Northern Ireland and, as sometimes happens, in Great Britain. His words were well chosen in that respect.

The hon. Gentleman was right to say that funding comes not only from America, and that probably less derives from there than from the rackets and other activities. We are taking a number of steps to make those practices considerably less successful than they have been in recent years.

I express my heartfelt sympathy to the relatives of the six soldiers who were murdered last night, and I repeat my tribute and that of my constituents to the soldiers in the Regular Army, to the UDR and to the police who serve in Northern Ireland. On behalf of all those people I ask the House to pay tribute to them and to recognise the courage of the people of Northern Ireland who, for 20 years now, have faced atrocity after atrocity with great courage and a restraint that would not have been manifested in this country if the same mutilations and murders had taken place in England, Wales or Scotland. Is it not high time that people inside and outside this House stopped criticising the people of Ulster for not doing more, when the defeat of the IRA lies wholly in the hands of the Government? The people of Ulster have shown restraint and now expect the Government to play their part.

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. We who live among them—hon. Members who represent them and all who serve in the Government in Northern Ireland—cannot but be conscious of the courage of people in the security forces, the UDR and the police.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's last remark. The greatest fallacy is to say that only the Government can sort out the problem. I said in my statement that everyone has a responsibility to make a contribution—the Government, elected representatives in this House, the security forces, the Churches and the people of both communities. Many people have a contribution to make in the fight against terrorism. Not only everyone in Northern Ireland, but a friendly Government and people in the Republic, are needed in the fight against terrorism. All those components must play their part.

I endorse the condemnation by my hon. Friends of the horrible event at Lisburn last night. I, too, express my sympathy to the relatives of those who were killed and of those who suffered injury. I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and on this occasion, as I have done in the past, I ask anyone with information that will lead to the arrest or bringing to justice of the perpetrators to come forward.

Talk of internment—even though it is not acted upon —feeds the propaganda exercise of the IRA. All internment is selective, so there is no such thing as selective internment. By its very nature, it means that people are picked, not on evidence or on law, but on selection of information.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will endorse what I am about to say. My party and I do not need and will not take lessons from any party in Northern Ireland about the absence of support for terrorism. No member of my party has ever donned a balaclava or uniform, has ever manned a barricade or carried a coffin of a leader of the Ulster Volunteer Force, or has ever created third forces or led men armed with truncheons and wearing balaclavas—as have leaders of both Unionist parties in this House in the not-too-far-off past, which actions have contributed in a major way to the creation of violence in our society in Northern Ireland.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say and note his comments about selective detention. I am grateful for his clear commitment, which he has given before, to ensuring that those who are guilty of terrorism are brought to justice. I am also grateful for his denunciation of terrorism.

. Members rose——

Order. I accept that this is a United Kingdom matter, and I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on drawing discussion towards the future, especially towards the wider principles. Is he aware that the way in which he spoke of American interest in Northern Ireland was not very reassuring to those who fear that concessions to the American Government have been a major cause of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the proposals for employment in Northern Ireland? Is it not possible for him, in a spirit of good will, to tell the American Government that it is not necessary to their worldwide interest to interfere in the affairs of Northern Ireland? In the end, the concessions that have been seen to be made to what many would, sadly, describe as interference can only be to their disadvantage in trying to persuade public opinion in this country?

If my hon. Friend is referring to the American Ireland Fund, he is reading an incredible amount into what I said. It is supportive of and interested in worthwhile causes, and I am very grateful to it. I would in no way seek to dissuade people from taking the undoubted human, family and ancestral interests which so many Americans have in Ireland. However, that interest must be channelled into responsible and worthwhile support.