To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to maximise the share of the European Community structural funds accruing to Northern Ireland.

The Government welcome the designation of Northern Ireland as an objective 1 region for structural aid from the European Community. Following partnership consultations, a development plan for the Province was submitted and negotiations with the Commission on the Community support framework are under way. Work on preparing earning measures is well advanced.

Since the present quota system of allocation will no longer apply after 1992, will the Minister ensure that his Department is ready with projects to assure Northern Ireland of its proper share of the funding? Will he undertake to ensure that every penny of European money will go to increase public expenditure and not to reduce the commitment of the Treasury?

We are very anxious to ensure that Northern Ireland has the maximum opportunity to obtain the maximum amount of funding for the best possible projects through the earning measures. Work is already in hand and my officials are having another meeting with European Community officials about this next week. With regard to additionality, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, I am fully confident that we shall meet the European Community additionality requirement. I understand from Commissioner Milian that any constraint on the availability of funds is more likely to come from the number of existing commitments in the pipeline than from any problems on our front.

Will the Minister tell the House how many bodies he consulted in drawing up the strategic plan that he intends to submit to Brussels for action? How have the consultations taken place, why was a very important body—the Institution of Civil Engineers—left out, and are the discussions still going on?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that consultations took place between a very large number of bodies. With regard to the formal consultation process, a body with a statutory function in relation to the plan or the earning programme is defined in the Community's rules as being a partner for specific consultations. However, the Government consulted much more widely and included the Confederation of British Industry and the trade unions. If the particular body to which the hon. Gentleman referred has views that it wants to put to us on the use of the programmes and the structural fund we should be glad to hear from it.

As the most important Euro-route out of Northern Ireland is that between Belfast and Larne and then out through Scotland, will the Minister assure the House that the Belfast-Lame road will be improved as a matter of priority in the development scheme being submitted to the European Community? Will he confirm whether the line of the other Euro-route—from Belfast to Dublin, down to the border—has yet been finalised?

The arterial routes which the hon. Gentleman mentions are important parts of the transport infrastructure for Northern Ireland, both to Scotland and to the Irish Republic. Transport proposals have been put to the European Commission in the context of our plan. It will be for the Commission, but in consultation with us, to establish the priorities within that and if those qualify, I will be glad.

Does the Minister agree that the designation of Northern Ireland as an objective I region, and the strategic plan to be based on that, represent a major opportunity substantially to raise living standards in Northern Ireland if the Commission's objectives are met? Does he agree that the Commission stipulates that special interest groups in Northern Ireland must be consulted and that expenditure must be extra and additional to normal Government expenditure? What steps has he taken, first, to ensure that there has been consultation, not just contact, with special interest groups, and, secondly, to assure the Commission that expenditure will be additional?

Briefly, please.

Will the Minister assure the House that the final detailed plan submitted in October will include local development programmes for each part of Northern Ireland?

In addition to the consultation and notification that took place before the development plan was permitted, there will be ongoing discussions with interested parties in Northern Ireland. That is in addition to those which have a statutory function and are thus technically partners under the European rules.

I have just attended a meeting at the Institution of Civil Engineers at which an excellent report was put forward containing a number of proposals for structure investment, a copy of which I will pass to my right hon. Friend. In view of the apparent decline in investment in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that report carefully.

I am glad to say that investment in Northern Ireland has been improving in an encouraging way in the past year or two, but that does not mean that I shall not be interested to see the document that my hon. Friend mentioned.

May I press the Minister a little further on the concept of additionality? He will be aware that there is a difference of view between the Government and the EC Commission. Can he say anything about the Government's thinking on that? More importantly, the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that separating the projects out might put them in jeopardy suggested that they would go ahead irrespective of any EC funding. If that is so, the Minister must accept that they are not additional to existing programmes. We need a cast-iron guarantee that in future any EEC funds will be additional to those approved by the House and the Treasury.

Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman suggests, I see no problems in our conforming with the additionality requirements but the matter turns on the subsequent point that he made. I was trying to explain that if those items were taken out of the main public expenditure block for Northern Ireland, as approved by the Treasury and incorporated in our public expenditure plans, any delay in receiving European funds between one financial year and another which meant that the amounts were not forthcoming in full would mean that those projects could not take place. The current arrangement provides some flexibility for the Government in Northern Ireland. I welcome that flexibility and would not want us to be deprived of it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many playing fields have been sold for development in the past five years; what was the comparable figure in 1974; and if he will make a statement.

Comprehensive records of playing fields in Northern Ireland are not held centrally. Of those grant-aided by the Department of Education, four were sold for development in the past five years. None was sold in 1974.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that on principle the Conservative Government will make it a priority not to allow development on school or other playing fields or green spaces? Will he contrast that with the behaviour of Labour-controlled Ealing council, which is promoting a building on the Cayton road playing field in my constituency?

Order. That is a bit wide.

It is very wide. It is an abuse of Northern Ireland questions.

Should not those playing fields be saved for children and for environmental reasons?

I know that my hon. Friend robustly defends his constituents' interests. I assure him that we consider every possible opportunity to retain playing fields. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that in the same five years nine major playing field complexes were transferred at no cost to Belfast city council and one to Newtownabbey council.

I am sure that we all approve of the Minister's last statement, but will he confirm that the Government have a ratio for the number of playing fields appropriate to the numbers of pupils in a school and that any surplus land has to be sold off for development and that that is the rule in this country? Perhaps the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) should find out what the Ministry of Education and Science is doing.

I am not aware of any ratio. From time to time, due to the decrease in school numbers, land becomes available—[Interruption.] It is not a ratio. We try to retain that land in the public sector for public use where there is demand or need, but occasionally land is sold off for development.

When land was transferred free of charge to Belfast and to Newtownabbey councils, why were the former playing fields used by the Stranmillis college not transferred to Castlereagh council free of charge?

The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of that council, knows the answer full well.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a draft Bill of Rights to guarantee human rights and civil liberties in Northern Ireland, for consultation.

Human rights and civil liberties are already well protected by existing legislation in Northern Ireland. I am always willing to consider proposals for strengthening the existing safeguards, but I am not convinced that a Bill of Rights is required.

Later today we shall be discussing direct rule and there will be an opportunity for the Minister to elaborate on the points that he has made. I hope that we can discuss the possibility of a Bill of Rights. It is likely that Front Bench spokesmen on both sides will wax lyrical about the need for democracy in Northern Ireland and then, for the fifteenth time, we shall moot the re-establishment of direct rule. Would not a Bill of Rights help to produce the circumstances and the framework in which we could move towards real devolved government in Northern Ireland?

I think that if the hon. Gentleman has studied the matter, he will know that there are very real problems about trying to produce a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland without encompassing a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to address the protection of rights, I am certainly determined to ensure that they are properly protected. If that is achieved by separate and individual measures, he will know that one of the rights to which people are entitled is protected from discrimination. The Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill now before Parliament will be a major step forward in that direction.

Will not the human rights and civil liberties of the people of Northern Ireland be best protected if they are governed in the same way as their fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom? Would their rights not be better protected if Northern Ireland Members could move amendments to proposed legislation and if the system of legislating for the Province by Order in Council ceased?

I have always made it clear that I am ready and willing to listen to any ideas for improving the procedures in the House. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has said, we shall shortly be debating the continuance of direct rule. I have made clear on three occasions—the fourth is about to arrive—my concern about direct rule and the fact that it is not a satisfactory long-term solution. I should very much like to find better ways to address some of these issues.

Is the Secretary of State aware that a Bill of Rights is one of the few issues which meets his oft-stated criteria for cross-community support in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that members of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland believe that his reluctance to produce a Bill of Rights has more to do with the fact that he could not continue to govern us by the present totally undemocratic methods if there were a Bill of Rights?

As that is the first constructive comment that 1 have heard from the hon. Gentleman, I welcome it. He has made some suggestions, whether I agree with them or not, about how one might address the real issue of the government of Northern Ireland, and he has done so on a cross-community basis, claiming that he has ideas which could command support across the communities. I would welcome hearing any further suggestions that he might like to make.

It is 15 years or more since I moved a motion urging the establishment of a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom and, failing that, for Northern Ireland, so there is nothing new in that suggestion, although no doubt it will take the Secretary of State by surprise, as so many other matters take him by surprise. Surely the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to decide this matter by a referendum. Let us have a Bill of Rights based on the United States constitution and the amendments thereto.

As the hon. Gentleman made clear, the proposal that he put forward many years ago was on the basis of a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom. The issue has to be addressed in that way. It is almost impossible to conceive of a separate Bill of Rights which would apply uniquely to Northern Ireland. The issue raises wide concerns and interests. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not a new subject and has been widely debated.

Why does the Secretary of State pretend that the hon. Member representing the Ulster Unionists, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), has made a new proposal when his party made the proposal in writing more than two years ago? It has been supported by other parties from Northern Ireland and by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. Does he not recognise that if he is unwilling to move in this way he will be seen to be governing against the wishes of all parties in Northern Ireland as well as my right hon. and hon. Friends, and he will face the unattractive prospect of being dragged back to Strasbourg time and again as more and more violations of the European convention on human rights occur.

Obviously, I did not make myself clear. I was seeking to explain that it is novel to hear constructive proposals from people who until now have preferred to remain silent. I welcome that. I know that this issue has been much discussed. It has been much discussed within my party and there have been long-standing discussions. I recognise that there is scope for serious discussion and I have called times beyond number for constructive suggestions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his remarks to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) about not making constructive remarks in the House will be treated with utter contempt by the people of Northern Ireland in the same way as the contemptuous remark that he made about me during the previous Northern Ireland Question Time? My political demise was greatly exaggerated by the right hon. Gentleman. Will he go back to the pigeonhole and withdraw from it the reports of the Convention and the Assembly which say that we should have a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland supported across the board? Does he not think that in this centenary year, and with his name being King, he should have his Bill of Rights?

I am much distressed by that intervention because I know the deeply sensitive nature of the hon. Gentleman. The thought that anything that I said caused him distress disturbs me beyond measure. I am thinking of charging for the use of my name in the hon. Gentleman's election address as I noticed that it appears considerably more often than his own.

Does the Secretary of State agree that a Bill of Rights for the North of Ireland is incompatible with the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and that until that pernicious legislation is removed from the statute book any positive and constructive discussion about a Bill of Rights is pure pie in the sky?

It is not accurate to say that. If the hon. Gentleman studies the European convention, he will realise that there are circumstances in which nations seeking to defend themselves against the evils of terrorism may, on occasions, have to take emergency steps which are consistent with, or recognised under, a convention on human rights because of the particular circumstances at the time. Any Bill of Rights would have to recognise those circumstances. The real attack on the rights of citizens and individual liberty comes from those who seek to murder and maim their fellow citizens.

Have not the people of Northern Ireland been deprived of the biggest right of all in a democracy—that the will of the majority should prevail, with safeguards for the minority?

If my hon. Friend would like to join me, we can debate that subject in much greater detail shortly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has acquired for the Library, "Who Framed Colin Wallace", by Paul Foot, published by the second Earl of Stockton.

No, Sir. However, I understand that there are already two copies in the Library.

Why does the Minister suppose that Colin Wallace has come to be believed by the publishing house of Macmillan and its libel lawyers, by the late Airey Neave, who was happy to have information from Cohn Wallace, and by raging Left-wingers such as the hereditary Earl Marshall, his grace the Duke of Norfolk?

I cannot answer for publishers or many of the other groups of people whom the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. As far as I know, the allegations that have been repeated in the book concerning the conduct of various persons have been fully investigated over a long period in the past. On the responsibilities of my own Department, I am not aware of anything in the book that would justify any further inquiry.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate, as he might expect from the names on the Order Paper, that the book is first, extremely well published and, secondly, extremely well written and that it will, therefore, be far better than most of the stuff he and his Secretary of State have to submit to during the week? Will he also tell us in detail whether his Department was consulted about the letter that appears in the book which was addressed to the Prime Minister and which set out in detail the reasons why there should have been a proper investigation into the matter and why the demands for an investigation would continue? Was the Prime Minister's failure to reply based on any evidence from his Department?

The right hon. Gentleman's reference to the authorship of the book is a form of benevolent nepotism, which he is entitled to use. The contents of the book and all the allegations raised by Mr. Wallace have been investigated separately by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir George Terry and Judge Hughes, and none of the allegations have been found to stand up. Mr. Wallace was given the opportunity to give evidence himself to those inquiries, but despite the fact that he was given assurances that he would not be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act 1911, he refused to do so. The House can draw its own conclusions from that.

Only the conclusions of the Terry report were published—not the evidence. When will the public be allowed to judge whether the conclusions follow from the evidence?

I regard that as a serious slur on Sir George Terry.

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

Since I last answered questions on 18 May, there have been no deaths due to terrorist action, but one young soldier was killed in an accidental shooting.

What representations has the Secretary of State received from Ulster Television and the National Union of Journalists about the two soldiers who posed as a television camera crew while filming outside a polling station in Derry on 17 May, during the local government elections?

The hon. Gentleman takes an interest in Northern Ireland affairs, but his supplementary question made no mention of the security forces and sought to find immediately a point on which he could seek to criticise, without even a welcome for the tact that, for the first time in my experience, I have been able to tell the House that there have been no security force fatalities in the period since I last reported. On the specific point that he raised, as far as I am aware I have had no representations but I know that that matter is being looked into by headquarters, Northern Ireland.

What value does the Secretary of State attach to maintaining the morale of the RUC? In the words of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, may I suggest that it is monstrous under the circumstances that he has failed to deal with the manner in which the deputy chairman of the Police Authority totally devalued her position as a member of that body? It does not matter whether it was at a private dinner party paid for out of public funds, or a public function at which Mrs. Phyllis Bateson behaved in such an outrageous manner. Will the Secretary of State consider whether she should still, after all this time, remain a member of the Police Authority? Will he take to heart the cliche "in vino veritas" or, as my grandfather would have said, "If it is not in when you are sober, it won't come out when you are drunk"?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is thoroughly pleased with that contribution. He would be one of the first to say, "Why don't more Catholics support the RUC? Why don't more Catholics who accept office and serve on the police authority"—

Many do properly.

Order.

The hon. Gentleman's contribution has been of no value whatsoever. He is simply seeking to repeat a private conversation, of which I have no personal knowledge which, in any case, is the subject of some disagreement. I respect very much indeed, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members will support—[Interruption.]—yes, the RUC, of course, but also the members of the Police Authority who accept appointment, effectively without reward and at considerable personal risk, especially if they are Catholics and represent the Nationalist community. They do that, and when they are vilified in that way it does the hon. Gentleman—.[Interruption.] There is a nasty stench about the comment and I am not the only person in Northern Ireland who deplores it.

Does the Secretary of State agree that many people in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom have expressed disquiet about the whole issue of the deputy chairman of the Police Authority? Does he further agree that it is interesting that at no time has the deputy chairman denied that she said those certain things about the former Chief Constable or about the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Without getting the Secretary of State's hackles up, does that not cause him concern, and is he not concerned that people in Northern Ireland should have confidence in those who are guiding the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Police Authority? One final question—[Interruption.] Will the Secretary of State tell the House what embarrassment that said person caused him in the doorway at the end of the night?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement was wrong—

No it was not.

A denial has been issued by the person concerned—

No.

If the hon. Gentleman would do me the courtesy of listening, he would hear me say that the person concerned has issued a denial. It would have been a courtesy for him to have respected that from the start.

That is a false statement.

I am not a bit surprised to find the hon. Gentleman joining in; it is exactly what I would have expected of him. I am sure that the House will judge accordingly.

I join the right hon. Gentleman in his repudiation of the distasteful question asked by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis).

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his initial comments. The UDR is receiving training in the use of plastic bullets for protection in certain circumstances. No decision has yet been taken about the deployment of those weapons. I want to make it absolutely clear that were a decision to be taken to issue those weapons, there would he no change in the UDR's role or in deployment; it would be decided merely on whether the UDR needed them for its own protection while carrying out its existing tasks.

Did my right hon. Friend see the "Cook Report" about the various organisations that give commercial backing to the IRA through various devices such as estate agencies? In particular, did he see the footage showing an IRA unit using a general purpose machine gun against an unarmed Lynx helicopter? Can he assure the House that in future helicopters will have proper protection and armament against possible attack?

I saw that programme, which I felt underlined something to which I had already drawn the attention of the House on a number of occasions, which is the importance of tackling—as we are seeking to doߞgangsterism, extortion and the various illegal fund-raising activities that support and underpin terrorism. On my hon. Friend's latter point, I do not know how genuine the film was, but nevertheless the threat of machine-gun attack against helicopters is real. A number of steps were taken some time ago to give all possible protection to helicopters in the important work that they do.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all those countries and organisations which have contributed to the International Fund for Ireland, showing the amount each has contributed to date.

The United States has contributed $120 million over the period 1986 to 1988 and has committed itself to a contribution of £10 million during 1989. Canada has agreed to provide up to 10 million Canadian dollars over a period of 10 years and New Zealand has contributed a one-off payment of 300,000 New Zealand dollars. The European Community is contributing 15 million ecu this year with the prospect of similar amounts during 1990 and 1991.

The right hon. Gentleman appears to have achieved a fair degree of success in that novel way of treating public expenditure priorities in Northern Ireland. Why has he not rattled the begging bowl in Australia, Japan or Korea? Even South Africa might be a reasonable place to try that. In view of the money from charitable sources that we have sent to Ethiopia, why does he not go to Addis Ababa and rattle a begging bowl there? If a begging bowl approach is to be part of the future of Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman talk to his colleagues about introducing begging as a topic in the education syllabus for Northern Ireland?

The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that there is something undesirable about contributions to the international fund being made available to support the interests of his constituents and those of other Members in Northern Ireland. I find that a difficult proposition to accept. It seems to me that the international fund is an important expression of international support for the British and Irish Governments in what they are trying to do to counter the adverse effects of terrorism in Northern Ireland and in the adjacent areas of the Republic.

As a counterpart to the contributions to the international fund to which my right hon. Friend is referring, may I ask how successful he has been in getting the United States Government to prevent contributions from going to Noraid and similar terrorist support outlets?

The answer is that we have made considerable progress. The United States Government, both the present and previous Administrations, have been helpful in that respect.

The Minister mentioned a European contribution of 15 million United States dollars. Will be give an assurance that where the European Community contribution is used to assist the shipbuilding industry, such purchases of goods and services aided by those funds will be confined to firms in the United Kingdom?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the contribution from the European Community was 15 million ecu, not 15 million dollars. As for the destination of the funds, the board of the fund is independent and I do not think that it would be proper for the board to earmark specific contributions for specific purposes. But its priorities are to stimulate private enterprise in Northern Ireland and to promote economic and social development more generally, rather than being aimed specifically at individual industries in the way in which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

It seems clear to me from what the Minister has said that, like me, he is puzzled by the attitude of the representatives of some parties towards this international fund, even though some of their members, both in the official Unionist party and in the DUP, have benefited enormously from it. Will the Minister assure me that the British Government will make every attempt to ensure that the money goes to the deprived areas where it is most needed, rather than to people who use it to feather their own nests?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is an important part of the policy of the international fund that priority should be given to areas of greatest need, and I strongly support that.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the international fund comes almost entirely from the United States and that it was called the international fund only to try to stave off criticism that once again America was endeavouring to interfere in our affairs at the time of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

That is a rather odd perception of the way in which the fund was established and contributions to it were provided. The United States is a very large economy and the contribution which it makes is most welcome. What my hon. Friend says suggests that contributions from Canada, New Zealand and the European Community are to be disregarded or treated as unwelcome. I welcome them, and if other contributions to the fund were available from other sources overseas, I am sure that we would all welcome those, too.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent by his Department on (a) Catholic schools, (b) Protestant schools, (c) non-religious schools and (d) other categories of schools in the last year, and what is the trend in such expenditures.

This information is not available in the form requested. As a best estimate, expenditure on controlled schools, which are attended mainly, but not exclusively, by Protestants, was £196·9 million in 1987–88. Expendiure on maintained schools, most of which are under Roman Catholic management, was £158·2 million, and expenditure on voluntary grammar schools, which have a variety of management arrangements, was £59·2 million over the past three years. This represents an increase of 32·9 per cent. for controlled schools, 37·5 per cent. for maintained schools and 31·8 per cent. for voluntary grammar schools.

The Minister may not agree with me publicly that many children grow up under a curse of religious education, that they would benefit from a secular education and that that would help to resolve the troubles in the Province. Does he agree with me, however, that the cross-contact scheme represents a small flame in trying to get greater understanding between children in the Province and that we should wish it every success? What is he doing to strengthen and encourage that important development?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the concept of cross-contact between schools in Northern Ireland. He will know that, when I announced the scheme two years ago, the proposed budget for this year was £200,000. He will be pleased to know that the actual budget this year is £650,000, and that is because about 340 schools in the Province, or a quarter of all schools in the Province, have now voluntarily joined the scheme to pursue projects together.

Is the Minister aware that his grants to the integrated school sector, to the disadvantage of the voluntary and state sectors, are causing growing concern in Northern Ireland? Will he ensure that the application of educational funds is on an equitable and just basis? Many schools in the voluntary and state sectors have been waiting for capital and development programmes for almost a decade, whereas the integrated school system that he favours seems to be privileged in that respect.

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we are talking simply about capital expenditure. He knows that, for the past 65 years, all Government expenditure in Northern Ireland has been directed either to state schools or to Roman Catholic schools. Parents who wished to have integrated education were discriminated against to the extent that they got no capital provision at all. It seems to the Government a matter of justice that, for a few years, a degree of preference should be given to integrated schools capital programmes to help to redress that imbalance.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings today, including attendance at the plenary session of the Australia-United Kingdom conference on trade and investment.

Will my right hon. Friend convey the warm greetings of the whole House to the Prime Minister of Australia on his visit to the United Kingdom? In turn, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking the initiative to give renewed vigour to the relationship between our two countries which share so much history and which can achieve so much together in future.

I gladly take advantage of the opportunity that my hon. Friend presents. Mr. Hawke and his fellow Ministers who have come here for a major consultation between Ministers and Prime Ministers have had very great success. It has been a longer and more extensive visit than usual, and it has been carried out splendidly. The trade and investment conference that is taking place today will also be extremely important. Australia and Britain are vital allies and both are very important to peace in the Pacific and to dealing with the problems that now face us there on a much larger scale than ever before—altogether a very great success.

The Prime Minister has rightly expressed horror and outrage, which we all share, at the barbaric actions of the Chinese Government against their people seeking democracy. Will she take action in support of her condemnation, and, in Madrid next week, urge our partner countries in the European Community to impose economic sanctions against China until the regime stops the killing and the persecution?

I am among the first to condemn the killing and the execution and the other results that have followed on the latest policy of the Chinese Government. I must say that I think that it would be much too precipitant to do what the right hon. Gentleman proposes, particularly as many of us are very anxious indeed not to precipitate a situation that could cause great panic in Hong Kong.

Would it not he wrong for this democracy and other democracies in the European Community to leave those young people in China with nothing but their own courage to sustain them? Since the kind of people running China simply do not respect words, may I urge the Prime Minister to take a lead now in pressing for combined action against them by the Community?

May I put this to the right hon. Gentleman—we are responsible right up until 1997 for the five million and more people in Hong Kong. I think that what the right hon. Gentleman proposes could precipitate a very dangerous position. We have been the first to condemn and we have also stopped high level visits and arms contracts. Further measures are being considered, but in my judgment what the right hon. Gentleman proposes could be very dangerous for people for whom we are responsible.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to improve employment prospects for women throughout Europe is to expand the economy by the kind of measures that the Government have introduced and not to try to force employers—I stress the word "force"—to provide special facilities for women? Will she bear that in mind when considering the social charter in Madrid, which among other things calls ominously for intensification of action against employers on the implementation of equality?

I agree in the main with what my hon. Friend has said. The Government's policy has been to set conditions to create jobs. We have been outstandingly successful in that, with the highest number ever of people in employment. We have the highest number of jobs that we have ever had. It has worked particularly well for women. The United Kingdom is the only country in the European Community where the unemployment rate is lower for women than for men. We have done excellent work in lowering the rate for men too. The proposed social charter would place additional burdens and restrictions on businesses and so lose jobs rather than create them, especially for women.

In view of today's findings that more people than ever before support and approve of the National Health Service—90 per cent. of family doctors and 85 per cent. of those in the hospital service—would it not be wiser not to destabilise the NHS but to introduce reform cautiously with development projects, as advocated by the royal colleges, and to evaluate scientifically their success?

I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has at last come round to that view. He could have said it any time, any month, in the last 10 years, but he did not for 10 years, although the Health Service has continuously and steadily been improved by extra resources, extra doctors and extra nurses—[Interruption.] —from what it was when his Government left office, when there were strikes, and hospitals and cancer beds were left untended. He has had 10 years to admit that we have done far better. I am delighted now to hear him say it. It is the best service that it has ever been.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the adoption earlier this week of the European second banking directive which, by allowing banks to operate more freely throughout Europe, will provide a tremendous boost to this very important sector of our economy? Does she also agree that this is further justification of the Government's policy of extending competition and deregulation within the single European market, rather than the grandiose schemes of European economic union and a social market with which the Opposition seem to be so obsessed?

Yes. We have been negotiating the second banking directive for a very long time. Its passage is very welcome because it will improve greatly our chances of having a free market in financial services which we offer to other people but which they have not always offered to us. So it is a great plus for our people in financial services. Also, we hope that it will soon be followed by an investment services directive. It is, of course, greater prosperity, not only in manufacturing but in the services sector, that enables us to offer higher levels of social services and social protection.

Now that the Prime Minister has had a little more time to consider the results of the recent European elections, does she not believe that to withdraw the Health Service White Paper would be in the best interests of the health of the people of Britain and of her own political health?

If the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper carefully, he will find, as many protesters have found, that it was quite different from the one that he was led to believe. I hope that we shall be able steadily to continue to improve the Health Service in the future, as it is now acknowledged—even on the Opposition Benches —that we have done in the past. We have one of the best Health Services in the whole Community.

Knowing of the Prime Minister's deep concern and sympathy for the anxieties of the people of Hong Kong, does she agree that we could take an initiative by going to the Commonwealth and asking it to provide rights of abode for all the people of Hong Kong— on the basis that each Commonwealth country took a quota of people—if it became necessary?

Of course, these matters will be raised at the Commonwealth conference. I do not think that it will be easy to get the results that my hon. Friend seeks, any more than it has been easy to secure other results with other refugees, although it has been very good in taking genuine refugees from Vietnam. It would be a considerable step for the Commonwealth. I have also to report that the Commonwealth—especially Australia and Canada—have been very active in taking in the entrepreneurs from Hong Kong to the advantage—[Interruption.] Of course, I do not expect Opposition Members to agree about people who create wealth—they can only spend it. Many of them have gone to Australia and Canada. It has given them peace of mind that they have somewhere to go and they have also brought great comfort to Australia and Canada.

Will the recently announced student loan scheme be extended to students from European Community countries who come to the United Kingdom for their higher education?

No. No more than grants will be extended, unless they are part of the overseas grants service where grants are given to specific people. They will not be given as a general right.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that the strike at the Liverpool passport office is now over and that, therefore, the threat of disruption to those who wish to holiday abroad has been lifted? However, will my right hon. Friend also join me in condemning the actions of those who wish to prolong the dispute and who have issued a leaflet which says that an all-out strike now, at the beginning of the tourist season, will give the passport workers the chance to give the Tories a bloody nose? Does that not prove that, whatever the place, whatever the issue and whatever packaging is used to try to convince people otherwise, here in Britain Socialists are still the strikers' friends?

I agree. Those who protest loudly about the greater needs of the public service are the first to say that they do not give tuppence for the public's rights, whether it be to get passports or to come to work. It is undoubtedly the public sector which is serving the public less, and it is such services as the privatised buses that are continuing to run. They genuinely do serve the public.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

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

The Prime Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), dealt very firmly and effectively with racists within his party. In view of the comments made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) in the House two nights ago, effectively restoring the old chestnut of repatriation, will the Prime Minister take similar effective action against him?

I did not hear the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but may I make it absolutely clear that there is no racism in this party—[Interruption.] —and we utterly and vigorously defend the rights of all people on an equal basis.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed European social charter represents an attempt by other Community countries to impose on us the higher aggregate labour costs from which they currently suffer? To accept that charter in its current form would be to abandon an important competitive advantage which we currently have and, furthermore, the levels of investment, employment and output in this country and in the Community would he lower than they would otherwise be as a result.

We accept, of course, that there is a social dimension to Community policy. We also accept —[Interruption.] Of course, because we were very prominent in our time in trying to steer that social dimension—[Interruption.] Oh yes—[Interruption.]

Order. Interruptions take up a great deal of time.

—in trying to steer that social dimension, and successfully steering it, to the creation of jobs. Mention any country in the Community that has created more jobs in the past five years than we have. There is not one. We were trying to steer to the creation of a very expensive system of training, because we believe that the most important thing is the creation of jobs.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I shall take points of order after business questions.