To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the repercussions to date in Northern Ireland of the killings of three suspected terrorists in Gibraltar.

I am aware of the interest in Northern Ireland in the deaths of three Provisional IRA terrorists in Gibraltar earlier this year. The inquest will be held in September by the Gibraltar coroner. It will address matters of substance and it is therefore not appropriate for me to comment any further at this stage.

In view of the seriousness with which the inquest is rightly regarded, and assuming that proper precautions will be taken in the interests of safety, may we have an assurance that the Government will not intervene to stop the SAS soldiers who carried out this operation from attending the inquest?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I have already made it clear that we hope that the fullest evidence can be given at the inquest. It is in everyone's interests that that should be clear, not least so that no one is in any doubt about the appalling outrage that would have been committed in Gibraltar had the terrorists' plans not been interdicted.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his latter remarks are those that should go out from the House? Two things are not in dispute: that those people were terrorists, and that they were planning the most brutal and dastardly outrage in the history of the IRA.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and it cannot be said often enough. What might have happened on that occasion if more than 60kg of Semtex had gone off in that confined space in the centre of Gibraltar would have been outside the realms of any previous outrage. As my hon. Friend said, the IRA has admitted that they were its members engaged on active service.

We are all agreed that it would have been the most terrible atrocity had those 60 kg of Semtex gone off in the centre of Gibraltar. That is why we want to know why the Government were prepared to allow a car, which had been checked through Spain, across the border and into the centre of Gibraltar, to be left alone for two and half hours when it was believed that it might contain such explosives. Why did the Government take the action that they did in relation to the car when they believed that the explosion would not take place until the procession on Tuesday——

Weasel words.

They are not weasel words. From that decision and those deaths in Gibraltar came the deaths at Milltown and the tragic deaths of two British soldiers. They were a direct result. The Government should be concerned about maintaining peace and respect for the law in the British Isles and in Northern Ireland. That is at risk, and that is why I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Secretary of State for Defence to withdraw the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) about the restrictions that will be placed on the amount of evidence that can be given by the SAS soldiers, if they attend the inquest. Will we get all the facts, or only the circumscribed facts that the Secretary of State is suggesting?

The first thing that I can do in response to the hon. Gentleman is simply to say, as I said in my answer, that the inquest will address matters of substance. The issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised are not for bandying across the Floor of the House. They are extremely germane to the inquest. No doubt they will have to be thoroughly examined, and will be, I have no doubt, by those concerned and the counsel representing them. In the interests of the proper proceedings that will now take place, that is the procedure that should be followed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of an identity card in the Province; and if he will make a statement.

We have no present plans to introduce identity cards, but this is a matter that is regularly reviewed in consultation with the security forces.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to the security forces, who have to carry identity cards, if, after a terrorist atrocity, they could readily identify whether people stopped at road blocks were local, from another part of the Province, or from over the border where people do not even need to have a passport?

I remind my hon. Friend that in Northern Ireland the security forces already have powers under the emergency powers legislation to establish identity. The question of identity cards is a practical matter and I am certainly aware of the arguments. However, in Northern Ireland the problems are different in nature from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. We would need to be persuaded that the advantages clearly outweighed the disadvantages before we incurred not only the cost and administrative problems, but the obvious difficulties of enforcement.

If we are to have a card to identify under-age drinkers, a card to identify football hooligans, and as people in Northern Ireland already have to identify themselves when they come to vote, is there any good reason why we should not have a comprehensive identity card system, not only in Northern Ireland, but throughout the United Kingdom? Surely the only people in Northern Ireland who would object to identity cards are the fellow travellers of terrorists. Normal law-abiding citizens would be delighted to carry cards to help the security forces.

I am aware of the points that the hon. Gentleman raises. However, this is not a simple issue. Very considerable questions are involved in the matter of implementation and enforcement. If we were persuaded that this was undoubtedly an advantage and that it outweighed the difficulties, then, as I say, that could be taken into account in future when the matter is reviewed. We keep the matter under review, as I said earlier.

Why does the Minister say that it would be difficult to administer an identity card system? Could not that system be linked, as it is in other countries, with the social security system? At the moment the police and the Army can check immediately the registration and ownership of a motor car by signalling through to the central computer and receiving the answer back within seconds. Surely there is an unanswerable case for identity cards, especially as the Government have leant on the soccer clubs to force them to introduce identity cards.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we keep the matter under review. I note what has been said this afternoon. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me, after such a short spell, to be able to pass judgment on what is a very intricate matter. These are important questions, and I was very interested to hear the exchanges today.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to improve the standard of education of the lowest 40 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

Curriculum initiatives, which the Government have already under-taken in Northern Ireland, are aimed specifically at enhancing the educational opportunities available to less able pupils. In addition, one of the main objectives of the proposals for education reform is to provide a balanced curriculum and common means of assessment for all children so that pupils with learning difficulties can be identified more effectively and the necessary remedial action taken.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is wide admiration for the education provided for academically inclined children in Northern Ireland, but real concern about the under-achievement of the bottom 40 per cent.? Does he also accept that the whole curriculum for children in that area needs to be re-thought, and that it is especially important for that to happen so that those children may be given the chance that they deserve?

I agree with my hon. Friend's assessment of the situation in Nothern Ireland. I assure him that, although decisions have not yet been taken as a result of consultation on the education reform proposals, we wish to make available to children and to their teachers a system that is as flexible as possible, so that it might best be shaped and moulded to meet the needs of the less able children.

Will the Minister assist those who are preparing for change in Northern Ireland by publishing all examination results this year and relating those results to the attainment levels and abilities of the pupils? Does he agree that qualifications must have relevance to the world of work? Does he further agree that preparation for life and work often means more than attaining a questionable little certificate at the end of one's school career?

I agree that the education system should prepare people for the world of work. I agree also that education involves more than a simply utilitarian function. With respect to employment, it also involves the broadening of the mind and the developing of the personality. Having said all that in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, I am not sure that I share the perception that I have of the underlying reason for his question.

Is the Minister aware of the recent national report on child care, which highlights the appallingly inadequate system of child care in Northern Ireland? It is a system that provides only 2·8 places per thousand in Northern Ireland, compared with 16·7 per thousand for the whole of the United Kingdom? What is the Minister's response to those parents with nursery age children in Northern Ireland?

First, I do not accept the designation of the position in Northern Ireland as appalling. Secondly, the hon. Lady will be aware that in primary schools in Northern Ireland there is a much higher proportion of nursery age children than in England and Wales.

Order. May I ask for private conversations to take place elsewhere?

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects were discussed at his last meeting with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I met Irish Ministers yesterday at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference. A copy of the joint statement issued after the meeting has been placed in the Library. As indicated in the joint statement, among the subjects discussed were security, Government proposals for disadvantaged areas of Belfast, for promoting fair employment, the International Fund and relations between the security forces and the community.

In view of the report that the Stalker-Sampson inquiry was discussed during yesterday's talks and that the British Government gave assurances that disciplinary action would be taken against certain members of the RUC, why is no disciplinary action being taken against Jack Hermon, who is clearly unfit to hold office as Chief Constable? If we believe even half the allegations in Mr. Stalker's book, early retirement is not good enough. The man should be dismissed and charged.

On the first point, the hon. Gentleman is not entirely correct. He may be aware that disciplinary charges have been preferred against a number of members of the RUC. The position of Sir John Hermon, the Chief Constable of the RUC, was considered by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, whose responsibility it is, and its decision has already been announced.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite obvious difficulties in a number of areas, the Anglo-Irish Agreement is a developing success and that yesterday's meeting is a further example of that development?

I have yet to hear any convincing argument in the House or elsewhere, and nobody can seriously believe, that we are likely to be more successful in tackling the evil of terrorism if we do so in isolation in Northern Ireland rather than in co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. Yesterday's meeting was extremely encouraging in the respect that I described. It showed increasing goodwill between the RUC and the Garda, represented by the Chief Constable and the Commissioner.

rose——

Mr. John D. Taylor.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Very well, Mr. Hume.

In relation to security matters that may have been discussed, does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland recognise that adequate protection for police stations is not only necessary, but seriously necessary? Can he tell me why the protection given in the city of Derry is so different from that anywhere else in Northern Ireland? It disrupts the life of the entire city and is causing serious concern. Will he consider urgently reviewing the protection that is given to police stations with a view to ensuring that adequate protection is provided which does not disrupt the life of the entire city, especially when other Departments agree that the city is starting to move forward?

There is a real difference between the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume).

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to raise with the people from Dublin a matter that is causing a good deal of anxiety in the House—the lack of security on important information that is passed from Belfast to Dublin about the movements of important people when travelling to or from Dublin to go abroad by air?

The matter to which my hon. Friend refers is of concern and it is still under investigation. I await a full report. The matter was mentioned in passing. Irish Ministers share our feeling to the full and the Taoiseach is on record as expressing his horror at the outrage. Ir. is a little early to identify how the problems arose. There is considerable traffic of people backwards and forwards and, in general, security has been extremely good in terms of information. Any lapse such as this is most serious and tragic. Perhaps I might mention in passing that, as the House is meeting, the funeral is taking place at Hillsborough of the Hanna family. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that we condemn the outrage and express our deep sympathy to the family of the victims of this latest IRA atrocity.

The Secretary of State mentioned the International Fund for Ireland. Can he say something about any agreement that was reached at the meeting on its early and effective application to disadvantaged areas?

The International Fund for Ireland is already involved in a range of projects. I have expressed my hope that it will be able to play an increased role and complement some of the initiatives in which I and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the environment, whom I have asked to take responsibility for the "Making Belfast Work" initiative, have been involved. We shall be anxious to see how the fund can complement such initiatives.

Is not the good faith of the Government of the Irish Republic in question? Did my right hon. Friend ask the representatives whom he saw yesterday to justify the restrictions that they have recently placed unilaterally on the extradition process from the Republic to the United Kingdom?

I have made clear my anxieties, and did so again yesterday, about the problems that have arisen over extradition. My hon. Friend will be aware that in respect of one problem which has arisen recently the Irish Government intend to appeal against the district court's judgment. We attach the greatest importance to effective extradition. Clearly there are problems in that area and they relate to both terrorist and non-terrorist crimes. It is also clear that the Irish Government view with some concern certain aspects of this matter which we shall discuss again.

Does the Secretary of State accept that it is inadequate for the joint communique merely to condemn continuing terrorist outrages in a week when we have been mourning, among others, the Hannas? We share the sympathy that the Secretary of State expressed on behalf of the House. Does he accept that there is something wrong if the brigade that is supposed to be looking after the border is logistically under strength?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our approach is a great deal more comprehensive than merely expressing our horror or outrage. We discussed several specific matters yesterday designed to heighten that co-operation, but all start from the basis of whether there can be good will and trust between the respective security forces north and south of the border. In that respect, I was much encouraged by yesterday's meeting. We have additional Army resources over those which used to exist in Northern Ireland, and it is certainly not a question of a lack of resources for the security forces.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a further statement on progress in recovering public moneys owing since the collapse of De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd.

As I informed my hon. Friend on 7 June in answer to his written question, some £12·6 million has been recovered through the receivership. The recovery of further amounts will depend on the outcome of legal actions and inquiries in the United Kingdom, the United States and Switzerland. In the United States the trustee in bankruptcy has not yet paid a dividend, as the process of proving and agreeing claims is not yet complete.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that more than £50 million of taxpayers' money remains outstanding from this disgraceful scandal, which includes $5 million which were stolen from British taxpayers by Mr. De Lorean in the GPD swindle in Switzerland? Will my hon. Friend assure us that he will continue to press hard to get back every penny that was stolen by Mr. De Lorean?

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the Government are satisfied that all necessary courses of action are being followed expeditiously. As legal proceedings are pending in relation to the responsibility for those losses, it would not be advisable for me to add to what I have already said.

Does the Minister accept that I resigned from the Labour Government, who approved the original payment, and that I criticised both the original payment and the subsequent payments by Conservative Governments? In pursuing the recovery of the money, will the Minister turn his mind to how the money was approved in the first place, the advice from civil servants and the link between the Civil Service, De Lorean and the company? Clearly, bad advice was given to Ministers, which tragically led to wrong decisions.

I know the hon. Gentleman's long connection with the case and I recognise the points that he has made, but it would be inappropriate to add to what I have already said.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further proposals he is considering for privatising Short Brothers.

I informed the House in a statement on 21 July that the Government were ready to consider suitable proposals that might lead to the acquisition of Short Brothers by private sector interests.

While privatisation remains the ultimate goal of the Government's policy towards the company, can my hon. Friend say what steps are being taken in the meantime to return the company to profitability and to give it the long-overdue capital restructuring and the same approach that has been given to other state industries that have been returned to the private sector?

I recognise that the company would benefit from further capitalisation. However, we take the view that the proper disciplines of the private sector are appropriate to the company and that it would be for the private sector acquirers of the enterprise to decide what further capitalisation they propose to make.

Is the Minister aware of the Opposition's deep concern about Short Brothers? The firm is a flagship for Northern Ireland because of its high technology and modern development. If it were to be sold off and then broken up, that would be a disaster. The Government should leave Short Brothers in public hands and develop the company, rather than retard it.

We are well aware of the importance of Short Brothers to Northern Ireland and I recognise that the work force must be apprehensive. However, we believe that the long-term interests of the employees and of the company generally will best be served by the company operating within the private sector.

Given that the production of commercial aircraft is subsidised either by open subsidy or by the construction of military aircraft, will the Minister explain why Short Brothers has been singled out and accused of being a loss-maker?

It is quite wrong to say that Short Brothers has been singled out in terms of privatisation. The policy of privatisation—in which the Government firmly believe—has been extended to some 17 enterprises in Great Britain and we believe that it is right that companies and organisations in Northern Ireland should also benefit from the disciplines and opportunities of the private sector.

If Short Brothers is sold off by the Government—and I hope that it will not be—will they ensure that the purchaser gives a guarantee to maintain the employment level in that admirable firm, which, as the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said, leads in technology in Northern Ireland? Will the Minister also ensure that the eventual purchaser will not be receiving money from Libya, especially in view of the important missile division at Short Brothers?

We shall, of course, take account of all interests, including the national interest, in considering all the proposals that we have for the acquisition of Short Brothers by the private sector. We shall also, of course, take account of employment interests.

Is the Minister aware that in London today there are representatives of all the work force of Short Brothers in Belfast and that they are unanimous in the view that privatisation of Short Brothers would be to the disadvantage not only of their own jobs but of the company as a whole? Is the Minister further aware that they feel that if the company is sold, either wholly or in parts, that will lead inevitably to closure and to massive job losses? What reassurance can the Minister give to those people in London today and to the work force as a whole?

The future of Short Brothers is best served, not by continued dependence on public ownership, but by the disciplines and opportunities of the private sector. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that in the 17 public sector organisations that have moved to the private sector in Great Britain there are about 655,000 workers, many of whom now find it far more advantageous to be operating within the private sector and very few of whom, I suspect, would want to be transferred back into the public sector.

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

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

Since I last answered questions on 30 June, 11 people have been killed in Northern Ireland. These deaths include the murder of the Hanna family at Killeen, a technical officer and two civilians by the Falls road swimming baths, a taxi driver caught in cross fire in a Provisional IRA attack, and a PIRA member blown up by his own mortar and two others killed in apparent sectarian attacks. I must also inform the House that, sadly, the soldier seriously injured at Cullyhanna yesterday has since died.

May I join the Secretary of State in expressing shock at the record that he has read out? Does he agree that, for the security forces to be effective, they must be seen to be impartial? Has he any comment to make on the statement of a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), on Channel 4 on 17 July that there was a dirty tricks propaganda unit operating in Northern Ireland? How does he equate that statement with the statement of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in answer to me on 24 March this year, to the effect that if I had any evidence of such a unit I should make it available to him? I assume that the Secretary of State will accepi the word of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, so will he now hold a full public inquiry to lay the issue to rest once and for all?

I am not aware of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who is one of my predecessors, but I have nothing to add to any previous comments that I have made on this matter.

Further to the previous answer that the Secretary of State gave regarding risks in crossing the frontier, will he seek to convince those public figures who seem to make a habit of crossing the frontier that they have a heavy responsibility, first, to the security forces who protect them and, secondly, to the general public if they run unnecessary risks? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would remind them of the wartime question, "Is your journey really necessary?"

Until I have a full report, the right hon. Gentleman will understand if [do not follow him in detail on that. He has raised important considerations for everybody in public life and in a position of responsibility in Northern Ireland. It is our desire, and it is certainly the desire of everybody responsible for protection in the security forces, that those wbom they protect should be able to live as normal a life as possible. At the same time, I accept that people have a responsibility to consider the security of those who are appointed and required to protect them.

Against the background of killings, woundings, and grief that lies behind the list of atrocities that my right hon. Friend has reported to the House, would we not be better occupied, not in arguing the toss, as the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) just has, but rather in demonstrating our undying support for the police, the security forces and all people on all sides in Northern Ireland as they face a horrendous onslaught on the freedom and democracy for which this House seeks to stand?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the clear and forthright way in which he puts his argument. The people of Northern Ireland and the security forces have had to face a challenge, a trial, a time of endurance beyond parallel in the Western world in recent history. It is against that that one judges the efforts of those whose only interest is to dive into the gutter to find any bit of dirt that they can throw at some very brave people.

Will my right hon. Friend say what success he is having in defeating terrorism by attacking the funds of terrorists used to buy the weapons that cause the death and destruction to which he referred—in particular by attacking a protection racket that destroys jobs in Northern Ireland?

I am fully persuaded that the removal from terrorists of the resources that fund much of their activity is as important as the direct attack on terrorism itself. I am under no illusion, and I know that many of their resources come not from collections overseas but from racketeering, gangsterism and Mafia-type activity throughout Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland. It is interesting that the recent efforts of the Garda Siochana in respect of cross-border smuggling show a clear understanding between our Government and the Government of the Republic of the threat posed by racketeering in all forms.

Have the security forces in Northern Ireland—in the widest sense of the Army and the police—at any stage in the past been involved in training people who work for private security firms? As I am not asking a question relating to security, I ask the Secretary of State not to hide behind that as an excuse. The question is to do with the relationship between the private and public sectors.

As the hon. Gentleman said, that matter does not seem to arise under this question.

Do the Chief Constable of the RUC and the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland believe that it would assist them in their attempts to defeat terrorism if there were the mandatory introduction of indentity cards for all in the Province?

No, I have had no such representations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now give the go-ahead to phase II of the development of the Kilroot power station; and if he will make a statement.

I announced on 15 July that the Government had decided to meet the need for new generating capacity in Northern Ireland, which will occur in the mid-1990s, by installing the third and fourth generating sets in the Kilroot power station as dual coal-oil fired units. On the same day I announced plans to examine ways of privatising the entire Northern Ireland electricity system.

Will the Minister explain what effect that will have on the projected time scale for lignite exploitation and on the proposed building of a lignite power station?

After the completion of the Kilroot power station, the next generating station will probably be lignite-powered. The lignite resources in Northern Ireland remain available for development for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. On this occasion it was more advantageous from the national point of view, and for all concerned, that the Kilroot power station should be completed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations he has received recently from educational groups in the Province; and on what subjects.

I have in recent months received a large number of representations, written and oral, on a wide range of educational topics. These include representations on the consultation paper on education reform, substitution provisions in schools, school development proposals, the cross-community contact scheme, youth service review and funding for arts, museums, sport and community services.

Following the decision by the High Court that the Department of Education in Northern Ireland is guilty of sex discrimination in its administration of the 11-plus examination, what is the Government's view of that judgment? What action will the Minister take to ensure that the girls who have been disadvantaged this year will have that disadvantage corrected? What guarantee will the Government give that in future the administration of the 11-plus examination in Northern Ireland will be decided entirely on merit and not on the sex of the participants?

That case remains sub judice and it would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to comment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the expected level of Government subsidy to be provided for any potential purchaser of Harland and Wolff shipyards; what is the present level of subsidy; and if he will make a statement.

The terms of any sale would be a matter of negotiation. Any proposal would be carefully scrutinised to take account of European Community requirements. Harland and Wolff received £58 million of Government funding in 1987–88.

In view of the persistent high unemployment in Northern Ireland and the fragile nature of the economy, why do the Government persistently push their doctrinaire and dogmatic plans for privatisation in an economy and country where those plans are most unwelcome?

First, the amount of public money that has been spent with Harland and Wolff and with Shorts in recent years has been large. Secondly, those organisations stand to benefit from private sector disciplines and opportunities. On the question of Harland and Wolff, we have had intimations of interest from parties other than Mr. Tikkoo and, as I have previously made clear, we welcome such approaches and will consider carefully any proposals that are put to us.

As the sale of Harland and Wolff has a significance that extends far beyond Northern Ireland, especially if EC shipbuilding intervention fund money is used by the Government on Mr. Tikkoo's plans, will the Minister give an assurance that if that shipbuilding intervention fund money is used, the engines and other major items of equipment will be purchased from British companies and not from companies outwith the European Community?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requires, although if he wishes to table a specific question I shall, of course, address that.

Will the Minister estimate the proportion of subsidies for Harlands and Shorts which are actually going to subsidise employment in Scotland and England?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. There is certainly some benefit that flows to parts of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland through those subsidies.

The disciplines of the private market have generally meant capital reconstruction and large falls in the number of people employed. Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no capital reconstruction and no sell-off of Harlands and Shorts on the cheap to the private sector, and a guarantee that whoever buys the companies will maintain present employment levels?

If the hon. Gentleman were to look at the balance sheets of Harlands and Shorts he would agree that some form of capital reconstruction is required and could be beneficial. It would be for the future owners to decide on future employment levels.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

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.

What is the most up-to-date excuse that the Prime Minister can offer for the latest appalling trade figures, which show how fragile is the economic recovery of which she constantly boasts? Is the Prime Minister not concerned that the trade figures will merely give further ammunition to her dear and close friend the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in his criticism of the Government, when he is, after all, only trying to help?

As I indicated on a previous occasion, the present current account deficit is being readily financed by an inflow of private sector capital. That reflects confidence in the United Kingdom as a place to invest and is helping to finance high investment by the private sector—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that—which will boost future export performance.

In view of this country's irrevocable commitment to full membership and participation in the European Community, does my right hon. Friend believe that our interests there are really best served by a policy of isolation, however splendid?

No, and nor has this country followed a policy of isolation. Indeed, if I may gently say so, this country has been very practical in making progress in the European Community: first, on budgetary matters; secondly, in sorting out the common agricultural policy; and thirdly, during this country's presidency of the European Community, starting on the single market to be completed by 1992. The single market now actually comes above the common agricultural policy, which seems to be left behind in the objectives of the EEC. I should also point out that, far from being isolationist, it was this Government who got a Channel tunnel started.

Does the Prime Minister recall just four months ago telling me that the balance of payments deficit of more than £1 billion for February was a freak? There have now been four such deficits in six months. Were they all freaks—[Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to allow the right hon. Gentleman to put his question.

There have been deficits of more than £1 billion four times in the past six months. Were they all freaks, or were they proof of the Chancellor's brilliance?

If the right hon. Gentleman had read the speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to the Institute of Economic Affairs he would have learnr. the answer that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who rather pre-empted the question that the right hon. Gentleman asked. Yes, there has been a deficit on current account. Part of it is accounted for by very high investment in this country, which the right hon. Gentleman has always wanted. Secondly, there is very high growth and a number of semi-fabricated components coming in. Thirdly, I agree that we must get some of the demand down, and I hope that the measures that we are taking to bring down inflation will also deal with the current account.

The Prime Minister speaks of success. Can she tell us how she arrives at the conclusion that one month's £1 billion deficit is a freak and that four such deficits are a success?

There was a change in the Common Market in the way in which imports and exports are accounted for—[Interruption.] I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to know the facts, but there was that change, which affected us all. On the first quarter of the balance of payments—we now have the second quarter —there was, yes, a deficit. There was also a positive balancing factor, which was greater than the deficit.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that one of the consequences of her early reshuffle is to take away many speculative stories from the press over the summer? The result will be that the press will have to concentrate on the precarious position of the Leader of the Opposition.

I hope that perhaps we might all have an August off.

—[Interruption.]

Order. This is all a waste of time.

Such enthusiasm is rare. I ask the Prime Minister whether, during the summer recess, she will ponder on the fact that throughout her premiership the Government have enjoyed the unprecedented benefits of the income from North sea oil, yet throughout she has told the country that it must endure higher unemployment, curtailments in health and education and growth in poverty, all to make sacrifices for economic recovery. Is the expected trade deficit of £10 billion by the end of the year evidence of that recovery?

The evidence of the recovery can be seen throughout the country in a higher standard of living, greater enterprise, greater profits and greater export volumes. Having heard what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, I can understand why the Liberal party is at last selling off the family steel.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

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

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the launch of the new employment training programme in September and the opposition to it from some of the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, from Labour-controlled authorities, such as Liverpool and Bristol, and from the TGWU, NUPE and NALGO. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that, despite the opposition of the shortsighted in denying the long-term unemployed the skills to obtain jobs, she will presss ahead with the employment training programme as a real way of tackling unemployment?

Yes, I gladly give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is vital that the programme succeeds. We shall need a higher proportion of the work force to be skilled, and therefore many more of its members will need training. Moreover, as we enter the 1990s a smaller proportion of the work force will be leaving school. Therefore, training programmes will assume an even greater importance in future.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

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

Is the Prime Minister saying that it does not matter how great the trade deficit becomes?

No. We are not complacent about it in any way. There is a great budget surplus, which means that the trade deficit is not caused by the public sector in any way. Private sector investment and finance for the future is easily being met by the confidence of outside investors in the United Kingdom. I had thought and hoped that the Opposition were in favour of higher investment in industry.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent remarks of Mr. Ed Koch, the mayor of New York, following his visit to Ireland? Does she agree that some of his countrymen, including candidates for the presidency, would do better to make statements following experience rather than engage in blatant political vote-grubbing?

I do, indeed, welcome Mayor Koch's remarks, which I have seen reported in the press, and I admire his forthrightness in making them. I am glad that he took time to come to Northern Ireland to see what is happening, and to do so with an open mind. If more people came with open minds and looked at what is happening on the ground, many others would be making similar remarks, which would be a very good thing for us all.

All her political life the Prime Minister has used people ruthlessly to get what she wanted for herself. Was it really necessary this week for her to use her junior Ministers and Back Benchers as she did to divert attention from the disgraceful pay-off to the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), and also from the scathing attack on her by her right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?

I remember the total ruthlessness, wholly supported by the Opposition, during the coal strike. If one wanted ruthlessness, that was it, and most of us will never forget it. That was pure Socialism— intimidating.

Will my right hon. Friend reflect further on the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) about the importance of training as a guard against long-term unemployment? Will she make time, before she goes to Australia tomorrow, to call in the Leader of the Opposition and give him a little instruction, as it is most important to both her interests and those of the Government that the right hon. Gentleman keeps his job?

No, but I think that my right hon. Friend could probably give him a bit of advice.

If the Prime Minister is so keen on developing the road towards the internal market, why does she want to dismiss the commissioner who has pioneered that work—and, furthermore, dismiss the commissioner for the environment and consumer affairs, who has shown a great grasp of his brief and yet has been thrown aside? Will she explain that?

When the two commissioners were nominated and appointed by the Commission, I made it perfectly clear that I did not think that commissioners should stay there for too long. I believe that the new commissioner whom we have nominated—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks— will take forward the single market. All his experience will be appropriate to that end, and he will do the job extremely well. I did not think it right to give Lord Cockfield a further term of four years, although I am the first to admit his splendid services in starting off the single market.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

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

The House knows of the increase in house prices, and with it gazumping and less than ethical behaviour by both sellers and estate agents. In the next Session of Parliament, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing legislation to bring our law more into line with that of Scotland, or a code of practice with the same status in law as the codes of practice for employment and industrial relations?

I have great sympathy with those who find themselves gazumped because of such practices. I understand that a number of the pre-eminent groups of estate agents are getting together to try to formulate a code of practice. That is very welcome news and I hope thal they will be sucessful. So far, we have not thought of making it statutory.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

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

Does the Prime Minister think it fair that a civil servant or journalist can face a two-year gaol sentence for revealing fraud, crime or abuse of official authority, yet there is no defence in law even if he or she can show that the only way of stopping such abuse was to expose it in the public domain?

I would not accept trie hon. Gentleman's last premise. I do not believe that the only way of stopping such abuse is to expose it in the public domain. The way of stopping such abuse is to report it to the proper authority, where it will be taken up.