asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with the European Economic Community about labour subsidies for development areas.

None, Sir.

Can the Minister ensure that not only the EEC but also the Council of Ministers is aware of the benefits of the regional employment premium, which is bringing at least 20,000 jobs to development areas? Will he tell the authorities that the case for retention of the regional employment premium is backed not only by the TUC and the CBI but also that highly respected mandarin economist Mr. Wynne Godley in last Friday's issue of The Times?

The Commission has not taken up any position on REP. There will be discussions in the course of formulation of regional policy. So far as the Government's position is concerned, we shall be discussing REP with the TUC and CBI shortly.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the constituency I represent was badly damaged by the REP and is only just now recovering, thanks to his action in introducing intermediate status to my constituency?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we take into account all views on this subject.

Can the Minister tell me of anyone apart from the Government who is in favour of abolishing regional employment premium?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman one person who was in favour of phasing it out, and that was the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-Bast (Mr. Callaghan) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will refer the proposed Slater Walker—Hill Samuel merger to the Monopolies Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will refer to the Monopolies Commission the proposed merger between Slater Walker and Hill Samuel.

I hope to announce a decision shortly.

Whatever the pros and cons of this merger, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is considerable uncertainty about the Government's policy towards monopolies and that in terms of the criteria for reference to the commission we seem to be moving backwards, not forwards? Is it not the case that, with respect to conglomerate mergers, there is plenty of evidence from the 1950's and 1960's about their economic effects and that we ought now to be able to get beyond the situation of still building up a case book?

The Government's position was made clear by the Under-Secretary of State in the debate which took place before Christmas. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is moving forwards or backwards, or backwards or forwards, but certainly all the factors which have been enunciated and are relevant will be taken into account in considering this particular merger.

Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman see the recent letter in The Times from the Chairman of Lloyds Bank which said that in situations where companies are in difficulties there is a clear conflict of interest between creditor institutions and equity-owning institutions? Bearing that in mind, should we not now be moving in the direction of segregation of these two types of financial activities rather than conniving at great conglomerates of just this sort?

That is a different question but I will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in view of the size of this proposed merger his announcement that he is still considering it is quite inexplicable? In view of the fact that there is—or there would be—enormous power gathered in this merger among people who are totally unaccountable to the public, and in view of the revelations of gross abuse of power in the Lonrho case, we shall expect a better answer than that.

The right hon. Gentleman has a gift for attaching all sorts of dimensions to questions which are unrelated to them. In view of the size of the merger it is plainly right that I should consider the matter carefully. So far from its being inexplicable that it should be carefully considered, it is utterly explicable and right. The right hon. Gentleman says that it should be done at once. He specialises in instant decision-taking and instant government.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received concerning the advice given by his Department to British firms with branches in the Republic of South Africa.

None; but my Department has dealt with several requests for additional factual information.

While hon. Members on both sides naturally welcome the current concern about low wage rates in South Africa and the action being taken to correct this situation, may I ask whether the Minister would agree that much of this concern misses the main point in South Africa, which is that workers are without basic rights and are totally with- out trade union representation as a basis for bargaining for their own interests? Would not the Minister agree that it is incumbent on the Government to give British financial interests in South Africa some pretty firm advice in this respect, particularly in view of the Government's often-repeated commitment to regularise by law the situation in this respect in this country itself?

The situation in this country itself is, of course, different from that which arises in South Africa. Many of the aspects referred to by the hon. Member are to be investigated by the inquiry being conducted by the Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, and there is a limit to the extent to which this Government should make announcements or intervene in relation to matters in South Africa, particularly while that Committee is still inquiring.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will amend the Companies Act to require the disclosure of information by international companies which hold a United Kingdom subsidiary of specified data relating to their global operations.

I am at present reviewing company law including the requirements for disclosure by companies, whether national or international, operating in this country.

Is the Minister aware that the recent revelation that Hoffmann-La Roche is selling drugs to its British subsidiary for sale to the National Health Service at more than 40 times the commercial price indicates that multi-national companies are holding the British taxpayer and consumer to inordinate ransom? Is not the Treasury's recent indication that it is not even seeking an estimate of the hugely inflationary effects of false transfer pricing utterly irresponsible at a time of so-called price control?

The hon. Gentleman's phrase "inordinate ransom" is a characteristic over-statement——

Forty times the commercial price!

I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. Of course, transfer pricing between multi-national companies has to be taken into account, whether in the context of counter-inflationary policy— where it specifically is taken into account now—or in the context of anti-monopoly legislation, where it specifically has been in relation to the Roche decision. It would be wrong to conclude that multinational companies are always to be judged on the negative side. They contribute a great deal in terms of growth and employment in this country, as in many others.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman connect in his mind the last three Questions which he has dealt with? Slater Walker paid its African workers in South Africa at rates below subsistence level. Roche, another international company, overcharged the Government. Far from overstating the case, the Opposition are revealing the deliberate blindness of the right hon. and learned Gentleman towards the interests of his business friends.

Of course the matters can be connected in that way——

And should be.

—and, indeed, should be. Of course all these matters must be looked at again. But, again, it is characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman to look at only one side of the balance when he considers it. Slater Walker may have underpaid its African workers but it nevertheless brought investment and employment to South Africa. Roche may have overcharged the National Health Service——

May?

Indeed, was overcharging the National Health Service—but it was making available drugs which had not otherwise been forthcoming. By all means let us look at these questions together but with a sense of balance as well.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the answer he has now given to the House seeks to put into the balance the African workers on starvation wages and set that against the so-called benefits of investment in South Africa? Similarly the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to put into the balance his own case against Roche which has overcharged the National Health Service, against the so-called benefits of research and development. Is it not clear that the Government are determined at all costs to protect the resources of their own political supporters in this country?

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government's decision in relation to Roche Chemical Products indicates a determination to protect the resources of Government supporters, he would think almost anything. It is characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman always to see only one side of the balance and to be incapable of making a true balance.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what negotiations he has had with Canadian aviation authorities about the effect on British advance booking charter flights of the restrictions placed on "Discount 50" fares.

None, Sir. As the hon. Member knows from the letter my hon. Friend recently sent to him, the Canadian authorities are considering our request that charter passengers who have already booked and paid for "Discount 50" fares should be allowed to travel at those fares.

Does the Minister realise that many families have made plans to go on holiday to Canada at advance booking charter fares hoping to go onward inside Canada by "Discount 50" fares? Does the Minister intend to do anything else apart from making the representations he has already made?

I think it would be appropriate for me to hear what the Canadian Government have to say about my first representation before making a second one.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs have been created in Yorkshire and Humberside under the Industry Act; and how this compares with the other assisted regions in England.

Some 3,150 new jobs are involved in selective assistance applications so far decided at the end of April, and a further 2,800 are involved in applications now being processed. These figures do not include further job opportunities arising from regional development grants. No valid comparison can be made with other assisted areas, but the unemployment rate in Yorkshire and Humberside has fallen faster over the past year than the average for Great Britain.

Is the Minister aware that there is some evidence of disparity in job opportunity, possibly as a result of the Industry Act, in Yorkshire and Humberside compared with other regions? As the regional director in Leeds is doing an excellent job, is the Minister sure that the disparity does not arise from the need for greater publicity by his Department or perhaps greater zeal on the part of Yorkshire employers?

I do not accept that the figures show a great disparity. Yorkshire has a different method of processing its applications, but that is wholly in accordance with our policy of allowing each area to make up its own mind what is best for it.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that these figures are extremely satisfactory? Do not they show that Yorkshire is very well placed to benefit from British membership of the EEC and that when the M62 from West Riding through to Hull is completed these opportunities will be fully used?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the views which he expressed on the EEC are those which I hear from all parts of Yorkshire.

Why is the Minister so glib about the jobs that have been provided? Has he taken into account the great number of redundancies in and the migration of labour from Yorkshire and Humberside? Is not unemployment in some areas more than double the national average?

I accept that there are parts of Yorkshire, as there are parts of other areas, which have particular prob- lems. The hon. Gentleman is constantly drawing attention to one such area. The Question related to the overall position of Yorkshire which I believe to be very encouraging, and the fact that unemployment has fallen in the past year faster than has the average for Great Britain is something that Yorkshire can be proud of.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the report of the working party of the Noise Advisory Council on minimum noise routes.

I understand that the report will be received early in 1974.

In view of the need to share the burden of aircraft noise more equitably than is possible with the present system of flight paths, will my hon. Friend announce interim measures to relieve the position?

I know that my hon. Friend realises what a difficult and complicated situation this is. We are consulting local interests about possible changes later this week.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of his discussions with industry and trade unions on the subject of the regional employment premium.

The CBI and the TUC have been invited to discussions on the phasing-out of the regional employment premium.

As the Government are hoping to maintain general economic growth on the basis—at least partly—of a devalued currency, why will they not let the regions keep the regional employment premium, which is in effect a form of devaluation? Is it not true that the Government want to finesse their regional responsibility on the basis of a traditional consumer-oriented boom?

No, I do not think so. The Government want to bring health and prosperity to the regions and it is manifestly obvious that this is already happening. The REP is only one aspect. All these matters will be discussed with the TUC and the CBI.

When these discussions take place, may we have an analysis of the thinking of the CBI and the trade unions about the REP being applied only in areas of high unemployment and not all over the country? It would be very helpful to Sunderland, where there is a great deal of unemployment, if we did not do away with REP—as well as to other parts of the region which I, among others, have the honour of representing.

The CBI and the TUC have made their initial views clear, but any announcement must await the result of the discussions. I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about Sunderland, but it is gratifying to note that unemployment in Sunderland has fallen by 1·5 per cent. in the past year.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom contribution to the 1973 Offshore Technology Conference and Exhibition at Houston, Texas.

With 37 firms exhibiting, plus the attendance of an important trade commission, a large group of United Kingdom visitors and a number of officials, the United Kingdom made a major contribution to the 1973 Offshore Technology Conference and Exhibition at Houston. I am informed that the British exhibits were highly successful.

Will the Minister tell us how this major contribution may be made in advance of the appointment of the Government's trouble-shooter, Lord Polwarth? Will he tell us the terms of reference of Lord Polwarth, as the exhibition referred to in the Question and other exhibitions are continuing items of great importance to Scottish and United Kingdom industry?

I do not think that the appointment of my noble Friend is relevant to the Question or to this exhibition. This is an entirely different question, and I cannot add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said at this stage.

But since the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Americans are coming near to the end of their space programme, has any thought been given to allocating substantial amounts of research and development finance to offshore technology to enable us to attract back to the United Kingdom some of our best technological brains who in earlier years went to America? The University Grants Committee is a rather pathetic instrument with which to try to deal with this problem.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point which I shall study carefully, but in general we have reacted to the IMEG report, and the full facilities of the Industry Act are available to help in this connection. I take on board the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received a copy of the CAA document "Forecasts of Air Traffic and Capacity at Airports in the London Area"; if he will publish it, or place a copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the document "Forecasts of Air Traffic and Capacity at Airports in the London Area", produced by the Civil Aviation Authority.

I have received a copy of the CAA Report which was published on 8th May. A copy has been placed in the Library. I would refer my hon. Friends to my reply to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on 8th May.— [Vol. 856, c. 206–13.]

I am sure that my hon. Friend would want to thank the CAA for making this document available to us all, because it demolishes the argument for Maplin on the ground of runway capacity. Will my hon. Friend answer two points? First, has he asked the British Airways Board for any estimate of the comparative noise levels in its projected 1980 fleet as against its present-day fleet? Secondly, does he agree that one major error in the CAA report is that it estimates that the first runway at Maplin will be open in 1980, whereas even he himself has now stopped promising it in 1980 and says that it will be open as soon as practicable?

We debated this matter on Second Reading and we dealt as fairly as we could with the opening date of Maplin. We gave it as our intention to work to 1980 as the opening date. As I said in my statement on 8th May, it is our intention to move ahead as fast as possible with the opening of Maplin airport and I see no reason to quarrel with that statement or the implications behind it. As for asking the British Airways Board for its estimate of the mix between its 1980 fleet and its present fleet, my hon. Friend surely agrees that this would give a misleading picture because we are dealing not simply with British Airways but with airlines all over the world.

Does not the Minister accept, as the CAA now says, that provided Southend and Stansted are kept open there will be nearly 20 per cent. spare runway capacity at London Airport until 1985? Does he not also accept that if there are to be substantial noise reductions for people in the vicinity of Heathrow and Gatwick, it will come not from Maplin but from quieter engines? Since privately, if not publicly, nobody in the British Airways Authority or in the British Airways Board is in favour of Maplin, will the Minister tell the House what private interests made it so necessary to railroad this project through.

I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman knows of any implications he will wish to name the interests so that everybody can then see what total rubbish his suggestion is. I shall deal with the two questions which the hon. Gentleman put to me. If he is saying that the official Opposition's policy as put forward by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) is to cram all the growth of airlines of the world into the London Airport configuration, one will have runway capacity, although the report makes clear that there will not be the passenger handling capacity. If the choice which the Opposition wish to put to us is that we should abandon the prospect of a third London airport and develop existing airports, that alternative should be made clear so that other people may understand the dilemma. The Government, having considered that option, intend to press ahead with the development of Maplin airport as quickly as possible.

As for the second question, it is perfectly true that quieter engines will bring increasing relief, but there will still be in the 1980s a proportion of non-quiet engines; and secondly, undoubtedly—as the growth of the number of movements continues as the graphs indicate—the expectancy of people for yet quieter standards will become more pressing. It is right for the Government to take that into account today rather than in 1985.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this whole sordid venture of Foulness appears to a degree to be based on the stubborn refusal of the Government to recognise that there have been numerous changed factors since the Roskill Commission was set up? Does my hon. Friend accept or reject that the meeting between the Prime Minister and President Pompidou on regional policy in Europe is relevant to this situation? Does he accept or reject that the Channel Tunnel is in any way relevant to it? Does he not accept that there are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) said, alternative versions of the CAA document rather than the one which he presented to the House? Finally, does he not agree that unless the Government are prepared to announce the closure of Gatwick and Heathrow, people living around those two airports will not benefit from noise reduction as a result of the building of an airport on the Essex marshes?

The fact is that one can persuade oneself that virtually every factor is in some way relevant to Maplin; but the regional factors have been carefully taken into account in the announcements we have made. The report makes clear that the decision to build the Channel Tunnel affects the need for Maplin by a year or two years. On the question of an alternative version of the report, the Chairman of the CAA, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has made it clear that there is only one version of the report, and that is the one by which he stands and is the report which has been given to the House. On the question whether we should move to a closure of Heathrow and Gatwick in terms of noise alleviation, the fact is that we see Maplin as one alternative in limiting the amount of noise increase at those airports.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms have received financial assistance for removal in the South-Western development area; how much assistance was offered in each of the last three years; and how much employment was expected to result.

Twenty-four firms have been offered removal grants totalling £325,000 in the last three years in respect of moves to the South Western development area expected to create an estimated 2,300 jobs.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging information. Is he aware that, according to Inland Revenue statistics, average incomes in the Cornwall part of the South-Western development area are lower than those in all other United Kingdom development areas bar one? Will he agree that it is essential that, to promote the necessary increase in job quality opportunity, Cornwall should be classified as a peripheral region in the context of European competition policy and European regional policy?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that these are matters to be discussed within the Community and he must rest assured that the interests of Cornwall will be considered. I entirely accept that Cornwall by its remoteness has certain difficulties, but my answer indicates a great improvement in its prospects.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his recent official visit to the USSR.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) on 7th May, useful and con- structive discussions were held at a very high level, which I hope will lead to an improvement in our general relations and to increased opportunities for expanding trade in both directions.—[Vol. 856, c. 4–5.]

As I have been getting that sort of reply from successive Minister's of Trade for the last nine years, I think that I can probably call that tedious repetition.

Order. Is this a question?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that very much more energetic methods should be used to clinch the deal instead of coming back with pious hopes? Is he not afraid that when Mr. Brezhnev goes to Washington next month he will outbid anything he himself tried to do last week?

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Lady says, because there has been a great deal of talk about improving trade and not a great deal of trade has resulted. Our exports to the Soviet Union are lower than they were in 1968. That is why I tried to list with Soviet Ministers a whole range of special products, and we are already dispatching leading businessmen and missions to try to clinch deals.

I congratulate my right Friend on his visit to the Soviet Union. Is he aware that imports have been rising substantially in the last year by 11 per cent. and that exports have been falling? Apart from the lists which he has drawn up, is he able to arrange with the Soviet Union any satisfactory system of credit and ways by which people in the Soviet Union can pay us money as a result of trading with the United Kingdom?

Credit terms were discussed with the Soviet Union. I do not think this is a major snag in developing policy. One problem facing British businessmen is that of obtaining information by which they can go after specific projects, and I think that as a result of my visit and the talks that have taken place the situation will improve.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether British membership of the Common Market makes it impossible for Anglo-Soviet trade agreements to continue and what effect this is likely to have on trade between the two countries?

None at all. Three trade agreements are being negotiated by members of the Common Market with the Soviet Union. One result of our talks was that we agreed to try to enter into an arrangement for a 10-year trade agreement between the two countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on discussions with the oil companies and other interested bodies concerning North Sea oil following the publication of the IMEG report and that of the Public Accounts Committee; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further representations he has received with regard to the Government's implementation of the IMEG report; and if he will make a statement.

The Department is in continuous touch with a wide range of interests in its follow-up work on the IMEG report.

That, too, is tedious repetition. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the principal recommendations of both the IMEG report and the Public Accounts Committee have not been implemented, nor have the Government made appropriate noises to suggest that they might be? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the principal recommendation of the IMEG report was the setting-up of a Petroleum Supply Industry Board, which would require legislation? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ensure that that legislation is introduced at the earliest possible moment, and also that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce that he accepts in principle the need for a barrelage tax?

My answer to the first question is that I made it clear on receipt of the report that we thought the most effective and speedy way of taking action and getting full advantage and quick use of the Industry Act was not to set up a separate petroleum board. As regards the progress that is being made, I know the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that up to the end of April 4,200 new jobs had been created in Scotland, and a further 8,900 are in prospect with firm projects.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hastily conceived and as yet inadequately thought-out arrangement announced at the weekend falls a long way short of the necessary Government structure that is required in Scotland for the development of North Sea oil? If the Government are not prepared to establish a powerful Oil Development Board in Scotland, surely the Minister must concede that there is an overwhelming case for moving the headquarters of the Offshore Supplies Office to Scotland and putting it and the Scottish petroleum office with the task force under one roof under Lord Polwarth?

Rapid progress is being made in this sphere, much faster than Labour Members are willing to concede. About 200 inquiries a week are being processed by this new section and a great deal of information is being obtained by the American oil companies which are of great benefit to Scotland. Besides that, there is the flexibility of the Industry Act.

My answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) about a barrelage tax is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced substantial changes in taxation.

He has not.

He filled an important gap—something which the Labour Government failed to do.

Will my right hon. Friend say what discussions he has had, or will have, with the European companies or European Governments about collaboration in this respect, as recommended by the IMEG report?

We are discussing all aspects of energy with the Common Market countries. There is a great deal of scope for liaison in many spheres of future offshore developments.

As the Government's policy announced from their Front Bench last Monday has been described in Scottish newspapers as a policy of muddle and incompetence, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the announcement of the so-called trouble-shooter is an attempt to some extent to offset one of the most disastrous Scottish Conservative conferences that there has been for some time? The right hon. Gentleman will have observed that there is no Scottish Conservative Member present today. Why was the appointment not announced in this House of Commons? Why should the appointment go to a noble Lord who is not accountable to this House of Commons? We are entitled to know.

On the question of the conference, all I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I was encouraged by the swing to the Conservatives at the recent elections. As regards the development of North Sea oil it is right constantly to take action to improve liaison between the Scottish Office and my office in these developments. I believe that the appointment of the noble Lord will considerably benefit that.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations Her Majesty's Government are having with EFTA countries which are not members of the EEC concerning the forthcoming GATT negotiations.

We are in constant contact with these countries, as with our other trading partners outside the EEC, on all trade matters of current interest.

May we have an assurance that the Government will not desert our ex-partners from EFTA when they come to the GATT negotiations, and will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, as an independent country, we are free to have trade consultations with, for example, Norway and Sweden in relation to the forthcoming GATT negotiations?

Our former EFTA partners, like any other trading partners, are free to express their point of view to us at any time. We would never ignore them, whether in the context of the GATT negotiations or otherwise.

Have the Government tried to get any discussions going in OECD on a general European approach to the forthcoming negotiations, since the whole of Europe will be vitally affected by the decisions taken this autumn?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the extent to which the whole of Europe can be affected by decisions taken in the GATT negotiations. The Government are exercising their right to make this point clear in every forum that is available to them, not least by means of the influence which they are able to bring to bear within the EEC itself.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will now announce Government funding for any new civil aircraft project.

I am not in a position to make any comments.

May I remind my hon. Friend that the British aircraft industry is earning its bread and butter —and doing it very well—from projects designed more than 10 years ago, and that there is a great need for replacements for the Viscount and Trident? As regards the Trident replacement, the BAC consortium Euro-plane is a quiet aircraft which would meet all the criteria of Europeanness and environmental desirability which would commend it to my hon. Friend.

All proposals are looked at carefully, and I shall take into account the aspects mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Does my hon. Friend recall the claims of Hawker Siddeley to produce a quiet aircraft at a fairly small cost to the Government—something that is very necessary at this time?

As my hon. Friend knows, I am looking at a proposal from Hawker Siddeley.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his comment that he is not able to make another statement is outrageous in view of the fact that the British aircraft industry has been waiting for some time for an indication of the Government's thinking, let alone of their policy, and that the absence of any other civil project of any size apart from Concorde is causing grave disquiet to SBAC, the Air League and many national organisations?

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the initiative must come from the Government for industry in this country and in the EEC, and will he say whether he hopes to continue the marriage with the EEC on this matter or whether he is looking for a partner such as the United States? If the hon. Gentleman is falling short of cash to give to any of these projects, will he consider the £1,000 million which will be spent on Maplin in the next 10 years as providing some way of helping to fund projects which might be pursued in the industry itself, bearing in mind that 200,000 workers depend on the Minister's policy today for their work during the next 10 years?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that in order to fund aircraft I should take away the ability of the aircraft to land. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would hesitate to accuse me of injecting a note of uncertaintly into the British aerospace industry in the light of the remarkable statement made last week by his right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the percentage increase in United Kingdom exports to the original six EEC members for March 1973 as compared with March 1972; and what proportion these United Kingdom exports represented out of total United Kingdom exports for March 1972 and March 1973. respectively.

The increase was 25 per cent.; the proportion was 24 per cent. in each month, but quarterly figures are better indicators. Between the first quarters of 1972 and 1973 exports to the Six grew by 29 per cent.—compared with an overall growth of 22 per cent.

Are the Government satisfied with the situation in which British exporters concentrate more and more on one market—the Common Market—to the exclusion of the rest of the world, as these figures seem to suggest? Surely the prosperity of this country must be based on an approach to all the markets of the world and a big selling effort in them all, not to the exclusion of any.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why I am delighted that exports have increased in virtually every market. Overall, in the first three months of this year we have increased exports by well over 20 per cent. in the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the present balance of British trade with Brazil.

Figures for the balance of trade are not available for individual countries. In 1972, United Kingdom exports to and imports from Brazil were £84 million fob and £86 million cif, respectively, but the difference between them is not a good measure of the visible trade balance because, among other things, of the difference in the bases of valuation.

I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that Brazil is the largest market in South America and that we are well behind the West Germans and the Americans in exporting to it, while we stand to be fourth in the league for investment? Surely British industry can do better than that. What do the Government propose to do to rectify this situation?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the Brazilian market. That is why the British Overseas Trade Board has designated it a priority market. That is why we have an expanding programme of participation in trade fairs and missions both ways, and why we are promoting the British industrial exhibition which is to be held in Sao Paolo in August next year.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has completed his consideration of whether to make Merseyside a special development area; and whether he will make a statement on what criteria are needed.

The application is still under consideration. The criteria are set out in the Industry Act.

With the Common Market likely to come to a decision in the near future about regional aid, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that Merseyside has a higher unemployment percentage than five out of the seven special development areas, that the rate of decrease of its unemployment is less and that, in an area of old and /or purpose-built factories, we on Merseyside have had only 30,000 square feet of advance factory space provided, as against 140,000 square feet in the North-East?

I accept what my hon. Friend has said, that Merseyside has certain special problems and has responded less quickly to the improvement in the regional situation than other parts of the country, but I do not think that this is a matter for Government decision in a European context. My hon. Friend will accept that we will have to have regard to the possible effect of a change in status upon other neighbouring districts.

In view of the current proposed redundancies at Cammell Laird dry docks and the general level of unemployment on Merseyside, as well as the factors to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) referred, such as the failure of Merseyside to respond to the Government's current measures, is it not absurd that Merseyside should be at a disadvantage compared with other development areas?

All these matters are being considered, but it is misleading for the right hon. Gentleman to say that Merseyside is at a disadvantage. In fact, under the Industry Act Merseyside is entitled to higher benefits than ever before; this is acknowledged in the submission by the Merseyside representatives.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems which is developing is the so-called bad image of industrial relations on Merseyside? Has his attention been drawn to the fact that, at the ex-Fisher Bendix factory, which had a sit-in earlier last year, the new management says that these workers are the best it has ever had in any part of the country? Is it not a lot of rubbish to suggest that bad industrial relations are responsible for the bad management, when, in certain industries, on Merseyside, it is the management that has caused industrial relations problems?

There is no doubt that Merseyside suffers from a bad image over industrial disputes. The Government would like to see this corrected by a co-operative effort among Government, management and employees. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman will be anxious to co-operate in this respect.

When he gives consideration to this problem, will the Minister also consider the problem of part-time chairmen of companies on incomes of £38,000 who live in Streatham?

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is suffering some difficulties at the moment, but I must say that that is not the sort of remark which will help to improve industrial relations.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he can estimate how many domestic users of gas had their supplies withdrawn for a period of five days or over as a result of the recent national industrial dispute; and if he will make a statement.

I understand from the British Gas Corporation that the number was just under 100,000. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said on 16th April, we recognise and regret the inconvenience that those people had to suffer.—[Vol. 855, c. 16–17.]

Would not my hon. Friend agree that there is an unanswerable case for the British Gas Corporation to make at least some reduction in the standing charge for those consumers who are affected? Not only were they caused hardship, but in many cases they were put to expense. Do not the figures which my hon. Friend has just given show that the cost of such a gesture would be relatively small but that the gain for the reputation of the corporation with the public would be enormous?

As my hon. Friend said on 16th April, this must be a matter for the chairman of the corporation. I understand that my right hon. Friend has been in touch with him. If my hon. Friend has further points to put, I suggest that he raises them again with the chairman. But it would not be right to impose a new, wide and general obligation on the Government as a result of events arising from industrial disputes.

In a situation like this, is it right that we should be paying strikers from public funds while the consumer who is affected and who, in the middle of winter, has to put up with all kinds of inconveniences may get no consideration at all? Should not the corporation pay some compensation?

My hon. Friend will understand if I confine my reply to the question of the remission of the standing charge. It would be outside that question to go into the subject of payments to strikers.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement following his signing of the protocol calling for a 10-year Anglo-Russian economic, scientific and industrial agreement, with particular reference to the existing imbalance in trade between the two countries.

I welcomed the Soviet proposal for such an agreement, which I believe would create a stable basis for economic collaboration between our two countries and in particular provide improved opportunities for British exports to the Soviet Union. I hope negotiations can be completed this year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if economic, scientific and industrial agreements are to flourish, the first and urgent task is to minimise the gap between our exports to the USSR, which are currently only £90 million, and their exports to us, which are £227 million? I appreciate that there is a job for firms and industries in this country, but is there not also some firm talking needed with the Russian Government about delays for political reasons and bureaucratic delays for administrative reasons on firms trying to trade with that country?

It is true that there are far more restrictive arrangements on British firms selling to the Soviet Union than on that country selling to us. I hope that we can identify ourselves in the early stages of major Soviet projects. This is one of the intentions of the agreement.

To be frank, does not part of the trouble in selling to the Soviet Union stem from the impetuous action of the Foreign Secretary in expelling those Soviet diplomats? If we are serious about wanting to improve relations, would not an apology from the Foreign Office be a good start?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of the Electricity Council.

I frequently meet representatives of the Electricity Council. The last such meeting was on 7th May.

I note that reply, but is not the Minister aware that electricity boards are unwittingly aiding landlords and property companies to get tenants out? When it is a landlord's responsibility to pay the electricity bills and he refuses, the supplies are cut off; and such is the inconvenience faced by the tenants that they then vacate the premises. Will he, therefore, as a matter of urgency bring this matter to the attention of the boards and request that in future they consult tenants to ascertain who is responsible for paying bills before any supplies are cut off?

I suggest that, if the hon. Member has specific instances in mind, he should put them to the electricity board or consultative council concerned, which will certainly examine such cases.

On the last occasion that my hon. Friend met the Electricity Council, did he emphasise that the subsidising of various electricity boards to compensate them for price control would be applied to ensure that the least efficient boards receive the largest subsidy?

I have had a number of discussions with the Electricity Council on the question of the compensation for which it has asked in respect of price restraint. This has been a continuing dialogue.

Will the Minister say something about the reported application by the electricity supply industry for a 15 per cent, increase in the domestic tariffs? If this were agreed, does he agree that it would blow another hole through the Government's counter-inflationary policy?

To my knowledge, no request for such an increase has yet gone to the Price Commission. I would certainly not comment on speculative rumours which may have been heard by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to implement the recommendations contained in the most recent Monopolies Commission report with regard to investigations into the practices of parallel pricing.

I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which will be made when the report is published.

At a time when it is crucial to hold down prices, and as the area of prices for which my hon. Friend has departmental responsibility has been relatively effectively held down under the Government's counter-inflationary measures, does he not agree that investigations into parallel pricing should be carried out as expeditiously as possible in order to maintain the progress that has been made?

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about the efforts of my Department in trying to keep down prices Where we have control, these efforts have been effective. We did not receive the commission's report until 13th April. We are considering the report as a matter of urgency and we shall deal with it as soon as possible.

Is the Minister aware that the Price Commission has announced that in future it may not publish all the price approvals which it gives? Does the Minister accept that the public have a right to know which price increases are legitimate, as the retailer has the right to be able to quote the commission's decision on which his consequential price increases are based? How will the commission's policy of furtive secrecy help the ability of the public to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate parallel price increases, such as took place in the price of petrol? Will the Minister insist that in future all approvals be published?

First, I must make it clear that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong to believe that there are illegal factors, as he suggested in his question. Secondly, on his specific point about the Price Commission and the way in which publicity is given to its decisions, this matter is under review at present, as has been made clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the result of his review of regional policy to secure greater office dispersal; and if he will offer specific and substantial inducements to firms in the service sector to locate themselves in development areas.

Our consideration of possible improvements to incentives to encourage office development to move to the assisted areas is not yet complete.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, between 1964 and 1969, 81 per cent, of offices that were moved went to areas subject to office development control since 1966, and only 1 per cent, moved out into the development areas? This is a sector in which the Industry Act has had no impact, and the Northern Region remains the worst served region for office employment.

The question of office development permits is not for me but for my right hon and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I very much hope that we shall be able to bring forward these proposals fairly soon. But in any event the Industry Act is more liberal towards office development than were the old Local Employment Acts.

Is not the Government's laissez-faire policy utterly deplorable? Are not the delays in tackling this problem completely inexplicable in view of the needs? Will the Minister consider, in the context of the second half of the Question, the possibility of extending the regional employment premium to the service sector when he has discussions about the future of regional employment premium with the TUC and the CBI?

I have already explained what is happening about REP. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about excessive delay. We are particularly looking into this matter. The Industry Act reached the statute book last March, and the incentives available for location in the regions are now far better than any that were available during the whole period of office of the previous Government.

Will my hon. Friend consider giving the intermediate areas opportunity for office expansion? The Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Economic Planning Council has always emphasised the importance of the service sector in the regional economy, and there foreign Power. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that region.

We are looking at this problem in the light of the particular problems of all areas, of whatever status.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any review of regional policy in Whitehall will be totally pointless if the European Commission has its way and excludes all intermediate areas, plus Devon and Cornwall, from the peripheral area of the Community? Will he give the House a categoric assurance that the Government will in no circumstances accept the exclusion of the intermediate areas from the peripheral area—an exclusion which would have a disastrous effect upon them as it would have a catastrophic effect upon Manchester?

I shall certainly not deal with an entirely hypothetical situation. I have made clear to the House the view that we shall express in the discussions which are taking place—that is, the need to get a proper regional policy. Indeed, it is the wish of Europe to get a proper regional policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the Monopolies Commission report on cross-Channel ferry services to be published.

We expect to receive the report later this year.

Is my. hon. Friend satisfied with "later this year"? Does he realise that the high-season fares are now coming in, with a second increase in fares since November? Cannot he do anything to speed up this matter?

The reference was made on 4th September last year. One of the aspects of the Monopolies Commission's reports is their thoroughness in the way in which the commission examines the situation as completely as anyone could expect. It is the completeness of the reports which has gone a very long way to having them accepted for their fairness.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions, over the past two years, his Department has had discussions with the National Coal Board on the future policy on coal-fired power stations.

The Department keeps in close and constant touch with the board on this matter.

Did the Chairman of the National Coal Board emphasise the dangers to the supply of oil by the 1980s and a consequential increase in price? If that is so, why are the Government turning deaf ears to the cries from the National Coal Board for further encouragement to the coal industry? Is it not time that a new pit was sunk in the West Yorkshire area and that the Drax power station was ordered to be built as a coal-fired station?

The hon. Gentleman must have a very short memory, as our further encouragement to the coal industry took the form of about £1,000 million, which went to the industry under the Coal Industry Act earlier this year. The hon. Gentleman should cast his mind back to that Act.

With regard to the further encouragement under that Act, the Central Elec-trity Generating Board has been enabled to burn some 7 million extra tons of coal above what it would otherwise burn. Indeed, the CEGB has a capacity to burn considerably more coal if coal of the right sort is available at the right price and at the right time. This is where the future success and prosperity of the industry lies.

Is it not the fact that I have been pressing, with a number of other hon. Members, for specific information about the Government's intentions in regard to the coal industry, with attendant burning of coal in electrical power stations, for the last two years almost without success? It is futile to go on talking about £1,000 million under the Coal Industry Act, of which we are all well aware—I have a splendid memory —if the Minister neglects the opportunity on every occasion to give the House the precise particulars it requires. Will the Minister now attend to his duties?

I would never challenge my hon. Friend's memory. But he will be aware, from what has been said previously, that the CEGB has a capacity to burn very substantially more coal than it is burning at present, if the relative price is right and if the coal is available and there is security of supply. These are the matters to which the industry must pay full attention, and is doing so.

I think that the Minister misunderstood—I hope not deliberately —the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright). Mr. Derek Ezra, the Chairman of the National Coal Board, is reported as having said that he is prepared to sink a new pit in the Selby district provided that Drax B is con- firmed as a coal-fired power station. Why are the Government waffling on this matter? Why do they not make a swift decision and confirm Drax B as a coal-fired station, which is something which should have been done years ago?

Planning permission has been given for Drax B. If the Central Electricity Generating Board wishes to put in for that, it is possible for it so to do. It has to take account of the relative costs of one type of power station as compared with another. At the end of the day it is the consumer who will pay. But the point made by the Chairman of the National Coal Board has been well recognised by both the Government and the CEGB and is fully taken into account in the planning of both these bodies.

In any future discussions that my hon. Friend has with the CEGB, will he take account of the concern which is expressed about the security of oil supplies and urge it to look very hard at the extension of dual firing in these stations which they are likely to build?

My hon. Friend is on to a very valid point, and one which is being carefully considered.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

At present in Northern Ireland the death penalty for murder is provided by the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. The Bill in its present form leaves that Act unchanged, except for one amendment in consequence of the repeal of the Special Powers Act. That concerns murder done in the furtherance of the activities of an association which is unlawful under the Special Powers Act.

The remaining capital punishment provisions of the 1966 Act require the death penalty to be imposed on conviction for the following types of murder: first, murder of any constable, or person in the service of the Crown, or anyone assisting a constable or person in the service of the Crown, if the murder is in any way connected with duties to enforce the law; second, murder done in the furtherance of a seditous conspiracy.

The new clause is directed to the abolition of capital punishment on conviction for these crimes. It does not raise the question of other murders either because they no longer carry the death penalty in Northern Ireland or because they have been covered already in the Bill. Nor does it raise the question of capital punishment for those offences—treason and piracy—which are still punishable by capital punishment in Great Britain.

The Act defines all these types of murder as capital murder, and enables people to be charged specifically with that offence. If a person so charged is convicted, a sentence of death must be passed.

When I moved the Second Reading of the Bill I explained that the legislation in its present form was designed simply to implement the recommendatons of Lord Diplock's Commission and to repeal the Special Powers Act, while providing such powers as are considered essential during the emergency to enable the security forces to perform their rôle efficiently. It was not, therefore, thought appropriate at the time to make changes in the remainder of the criminal law in Northern Ireland, particularly changes of a permanent nature.

The vote on the Ten-Minute Rule Bill, introduced recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) led Her Majesty's Government to decide, however, that the House should have the opportunity to consider the remaining provisions for capital punishment in Northern Ireland. This is particularly desirable in view of the recent constitutional proposals by Her Majesty's Government that the Government should remain responsible to Parliament for matters of law and order in Northern Ireland for the time being.

These, then, are the reasons for introducing this new clause. As is usual on this issue, both the Government and the Opposition have agreed to a free vote. I should now like to describe the effect of the proposed new clause and briefly explain my own attitude to it.

The new clause would not be subject to the provisions for expiry and renewal in the Bill. It provides that no person shall suffer death for murder, and that a person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, unless he was under 18 years of age when he committed the offence. In that case, as at present, he will be sentenced to be detained during pleasure. That is the effect of subsection (1).

Subsection (2) of the new clause will enable the court which sentences a convicted murderer to recommend to the Minister of Home Affairs a minimum period during which, in its view, the person should be kept in custody. This follows the practice in England and Wales.

There is a reference to the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland. If this new clause were not to become law, would a recommendation which might be made to Her Majesty be made by the Secretary of State or by the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland?

I am coming to that point. The answer is that it would be made under the present Act, and in future provisions, by the Secretary of State.

The Minister of Home Affairs is responsible under Northern Ireland legislation for deciding whether to release on licence a person sentenced to life imprisonment, but by virtue of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland exercises that responsibility. If the Government's constitutional proposals are implemented, he will continue to exercise it for the time being. Subsection (3) will prevent any such release from being authorised unless the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and, if he is available, the judge who tried the person who is being considered for release, have been consulted by the Minister, that is the Secretary of State.

3.45 p.m.

If the Bill, amended by the inclusion of this new clause, comes into effect, there may at that time be people charged with capital murder, who may have pleaded or been found guilty of the charge, and may be under sentence of death. The clause provides in subsection (4) that in all such cases the charge, plea or finding, should be treated as if it were for murder only, and the sentence as if it were one of life imprisonment. Subsection (5) defines capital murder as having in the clause the same meaning as in the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1966.

It perhaps is important for the House in reaching a view on this that it should also have the history of capital punishment in Northern Ireland over the last 50 years. There have been only 11 executions since 1922 and since 1944 there have been only two executions.

In the course of 51 years, only one man—in 1942—has been executed for murdering a policeman. There have been no executions under the particular provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1966, and the last execution in Northern Ireland was in 1961.

The question which this House has to decide is whether conditions in Northern Ireland are such as to justify retention of capital punishment in one part of the United Kingdom when, by the will of Parliament, it has been abolished elsewhere. In coming to a conclusion on this difficult, emotional and essentially personal issue, one consideration must surely be paramount. Will the retention, and so, if it is to mean anything, the implementation in certain cases, of the death penalty serve to give greater protection to our policemen and soldiers?

I have always believed that this House has an overriding duty to protect to the best of its ability those who serve the State, particularly in the enforcement of the law. Indeed, it was solely because of my anxieties on this score that I personally voted for the retention of capital punishment when Parliament abolished it in 1965. Now I believe that this House has to make up its mind on this issue for Northern Ireland. I can only therefore tell the House, with all the reservations that any personal view must have, what I have concluded.

First, I have decided that one's views about capital punishment in Great Britain are irrelevant because this House has recently reaffirmed its view on that question. I look, therefore, entirely to the Northern Ireland scene. In this context I must tell the House that I have received representations urging the retention of capital punishment from the Royal Ulster Constabulary Police Federation and the RUC Superintendents' Association. I can also appreciate the views of those who say that whatever may be the merits of the case, this is not the time to make a change.

I find it hard to believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent in Northern Ireland today because anyone who shoots at or attempts to kill a policeman or soldier in Northern Ireland knows that he risks immediate counter-fire and possibly death.

Since my right hon. Friend thinks of this as the real deterrent can he give to the House the number of the security forces who have been killed in Northern Ireland? I know that it is about 250. Can he say how many people have been killed? Again, it is about 700. Can he tell the House how many members of the IRA or any terrorists, putting it in general terms, have been killed by the soldiers in this war?

I can give my hon. Friend these figures but I have not got them with me. I do not think they are relevant to my argument. My hon. Friend may feel that capital punishment is a deterrent. I am simply saying why, in my personal view, it is not.

Secondly, I have experienced at first hand the sort of emotional reactions which particular events provoke in Northern Ireland. I am therefore absolutely convinced, as a result of that experience, that in the days immediately before and after any proposed execution the police and the soldiers would be at increased risk. As a result, the effort to protect the lives of policemen and soldiers by making an example in the case of a death which cannot be reprieved would be likely to provoke more shooting and more risk of death than to reduce it.

I cannot claim any greater wisdom than any other Member of the House on this point, and, of course, I may be wrong. I can only plead that Irish history is on my side and that the creation of martyrs in Ireland has certainly not helped to protect the lives of those trying to enforce law and order.

For all these reasons I have come to the conclusion, despite what I know to be the feelings of many people, that, far from there being a particular reason for keeping the death penalty in Northern Ireland when it is abolished in the rest of the United Kingdom, the arguments are entirely the other way. Therefore, personally—I speak for myself—I shall vote for the new clause.

The Standing Committee considering the Bill has met twice. Today's debate is part of the Committee stage process.

The Bill arose from the recommendations of the Diplock Committee which reported in December last year. Although we are dealing with a matter of principle which stands on its own, it is important to fit the Government's new clause into the perspective of the Bill in Committee. The Secretary of State did that, and I should like, for my own purpose, to take the same route.

The greater part of the special powers legislation is repealed by Schedule 5. That legislation included capital punishment for crimes coming within Sections 2 and 3 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883. The Government, by publishing this Bill in April 1973, indicated their intention of limiting capital punishment in Northern Ireland in the special powers legislation respect. The Bill also further limited capital punishment under the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 by making changes in Section 10(l)(b) which concerned murders by those in "unlawful association". What was left in the measure was capital murder under Section 10(l)(a) of the 1966 Act—

"murder of any constable or person in the service of the Crown "—

or those assisting them—and, in the first part of Section 10(l)(b), murder done as part of a seditious conspiracy.

In the face of events in Northern Ireland, the Government, as the Secretary of State has explained, have changed their mind since they published the Bill on 2nd April. In my view, the Government were, and are, correct to seek completely to end capital punishment in the United Kingdom as a whole. There is a United Kingdom argument and a Northern Ireland argument.

As to the United Kingdom argument, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Our involvement in Northern Ireland is real and earnest, as the security forces know. It is this United Kingdom to which the majority in Northern Ireland wish to belong, with all its strength which that community sees and with all its weaknesses. Over the years, tortuously, capital punishment in Great Britain has been abolished. Only on 11th April this year the House refused leave, on a free vote, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) to bring in a Bill to provide for capital punishment to be the penalty for murder involving the use of firearms or explosives and for the murder of a police or prison officer. The hon. Gentleman's wording included those types of murder which the Government had removed when the Bill was published and now wish to remove by the clause. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and for this general reason alone the Government are right in bringing the clause before the Committee of the whole House.

It was not for some logical argument of this nature that the Government sought to alter the capital punishment law in Northern Ireland—and to alter it by the new clause. The Government have changed their mind in the context of Northern Ireland. As in the nineteenth century—shades, for example, of the Duke of Wellington crying with anguish at the time of the Corn Laws about "those damned potatoes"—events in Northern Ireland have forced us in the United Kingdom to make a change in a fundamental aspect of policy which has great political import in these islands.

We do not have to rehearse the tragedy of the breakdown of law and order in Northern Ireland, the sectarian murders or the situation of the troops and paramilitary forces. It is all known to us. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) asked a question about figures. As at 12.50 p.m. today, the figures—and I cannot ignore them in my argument— show that, since 1969, 33 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, four members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, 179 members of the Army, 34 members of the UDR and 538 civilians, making a total of 788 people, have been killed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that fact is never far from my mind, and it is not far from my mind in deploying this argument.

The hon. Gentleman has quoted comprehensive statistics. Has he the statistic in which many of us are interested, namely, how many terrorists have been shot by the troops?

No, because I do not know how many of the total of 538 civilians were members of the IRA, nor do I know the number of IRA members taken into the Republic in the early days. But it is likely that a number of those civilians were members of the IRA or of other organisations which conduct themselves in the fashion about which we know.

The question which we must ask is whether the death penalty in the form in the Bill, if the new clause were not approved, would be relevant to Northern Ireland and whether it would contribute to peace and to a political solution in the province. As someone who has consistently supported the abolition of capital punishment in the Great Britain sense, if I thought that it was relevant, and if I thought, in the face of the figures, that it would contribute to peace and a political solution, I would vote against the Government.

I am sure that it would not do so. As far as I can trace—and the Secretary of State gave detailed figures relating to the death penalty—there has been no death penalty sentence imposed under the Special Powers Act. People have not been found guilty or executed. Until the end of 1972 no one had been found guilty under Section 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1966.

4.0 p.m.

To those who claim that the threat of capital punishment is a deterrent, I say that the threat of the use of the death penalty in the Special Powers Act or in the Criminal Justice Act has not deterred violence in Northern Ireland. All the facts of the situation during the last three years go against anybody who feels that way. The threat has been there consistently by the presence of the Army.

In Brigadier Kitson's book "Low Intensity Operations", he says at page 24,

"when the regular army was first raised in the seventeenth century, 'suppression of the Irish' was coupled with 'Defence of the Protestant Religion' as one of the two main reasons for its existence."

There has been the threat of instant death from the security forces. That is the point which the right hon. Gentleman made. The Army has been firing back, following the instructions in the yellow cards. I suspected—and today the right hon. Gentleman revealed what I suspected—that the fact that the death penalty, in that straight sense, has been operated in Northern Ireland for the last three years, and the fact that the number of people killed has continued to increase, has been one of the issues that forced the right hon. Gentleman to change his mind.

In a highly charged political situation, such as the situation which we have in Northern Ireland, the threat of death does not deter. One of the developments that has taken place in recent months and in recent years is the participation by the young in Northern Ireland. We have seen them on television hurling bricks at the forces. We have seen them going right up to members of the security forces and putting bricks down their visors. The sort of thing which we have seen has made people angry on this side of the water. We are now finding that young people under the age of 15 are playing a real part in the activities of the para-military forces in Belfast.

Right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the book called "Children in Conflict" by Morrice Fraser. It was reviewed recently in the Financial Times. One passage from the review caught my eye. It said:

"What is socially far more ominous, and has brought some of Dr. Fraser's acquaintances to despair, is the intensity of hate, starting from infancy, already developed by early childhood, and apparently irremoveable. Hate on both sides. The Catholic children (and Dr. Fraser judges this would be true of a large majority of all the Catholic population) hate the British soldiers, don't regard them as human, and wish only to see them killed. Very small children stone ambulances when they arrive to carry away a wounded man.

The Protestant children hate the Catholics, don't regard them as human, and reciprocally wish only to see them killed. After the Derry shooting when 13 Catholics died, Junior Orangemen sang, 'We've got one, we've got two, we've got thirteen more than you…." On both sides, the children regard their hate-objects almost exactly as the Hitler Youth regarded the Jews—that is, as vermin, fit for nothing but extermination. The children are, if possible, more unfeeling and crueller than their seniors."

It has been put to me in recent weeks that the very young are one of the material reasons for the security forces not getting the ultimate success of preventing violence. It appears, judging from their activities, that, to use the right hon. Gentleman's words, their ideal is to wear a martyr's crown. The threat of death is irrelevant in the context of martyrdom, the feeling of hate and the evil side of nationalism.

In reverse, the threat of death by the Provisional IRA, which carries out its own death penalty, does not convert the Protestants to a belief or an acceptance of a united Ireland. Indeed, it has the opposite effect.

The Secretary of State was not unaware of these arguments when he published his Bill on 2nd April. He left in the Bill the death penalty in a Section 10 sense and, if I may say so, in the Cathcart sense. Indeed, until the end of 1972 no sentence under the relevant section of the 1966 Act had been passed. It took 1973 to concentrate the mind of the Secretary of State. It took the sentence of death on Albert Brown, Protestant, a member of the UDA who was found guilty of murdering a member of the RUC with a licensed gun. Subsequently the right hon. Gentleman announced that Brown was to be reprieved under his powers.

What moved the Secretary of State? He told us today—and I believe that he could have expressed himself more forcefully at the time if he had not restrained himself—that there came the realisation that if Brown had been executed the Protestant areas of down-town Belfast would have erupted. From the information which I have—and I do my best to keep in touch—the mood in the Protestant areas of Belfast that weekend would have led any Secretary of State to take that factor into account. Whatever would have happened had the penalty been carried out, the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind, and changed it rightly. He did not change his mind by force of logic but by the logic of events in Northern Ireland.

Would those who are against the new clause and who are against the Government's advice have executed Brown? A short time ago I saw the hon. Member for Cathcart indicate his disagreement with me. Were he Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—it is no use pulling words or punches—and as a Scot in Northern Ireland, would he have given approval for the execution of a Protestant member of the UDA?

The hon. Member for Cathcart feels strongly about the killing of policemen. So do we all. The hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about the matter that he introduced a Bill. However, since the Secretary of State used his powers to reprieve Brown, a man who killed a policeman, I have not heard or read that the hon. Member for Cathcart has spoken out against that decision. But just before the decision was taken, he felt strongly enough about the death penalty to raise the general principle on the Floor of the House.

Those like the hon. Gentleman who intend, I presume, to vote against the new clause, are not indicating only a general view or approach. They are voting on the one case that made the Secretary of State change his mind. They are voting on the case of Albert Brown. There is a Catholic in the legal pipeline who has been found guilty. He is the second man to be in that position since 1973—that is, since the Secretary of State has had full powers. William Gerard Holden has been sentenced to death for the murder of Private Frank Bell of the 2nd Parachute Regiment on 17th September 1972. Holden is a 19-year-old chef. He is a Roman Catholic. The Secretary of State—not me, not the hon. Member for Cathcart—has to decide what to do. He has to make up his mind and to exercise what is, in effect, the Royal Prerogative. He has to decide whether to deal with the Holden case in the same way as that in which he dealt with Albert Brown.

Whatever we do today, I believe that the Secretary of State has only one course of action to follow in Northern Ireland. By following the reprieve of Brown with general legislative action, he is correct. The Brown case concentrated his mind, and he changed his mind. In the debate on his Ten Minute Rule Bill, the hon. Member for Cathcart invited us to look at the facts in Great Britain over the last eight years. He invited us to look at South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Portugal and States of the United States. I invite him to look at Northern Ireland.

I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, and his remarks are of a powerful nature. But would it not be right in this context to remember that some very dastardly crimes have been committed by the IRA? Does the hon. Gentleman recall the murder of a policeman who was washing his car at Old Park filling station? He was gunned down in a planned, sinister attack. Because the law of Nortern Ireland does not cover a crime of that nature in the provision of the death penalty, for the policeman was off duty, a capital charge could not be brought against his killer.

But that incident would not fit what the Government are proposing to do now. Whatever they do, the killer would not be executed. In a strict sense, that case is not relevant to the debate, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that I have never believed that the doctrine of "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is of general application. That is the Old Testament argument and I would not argue with the hon. Gentleman, with all his knowledge, although we come from not dissimilar backgrounds. But I do say that because it is "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" the problem in Northern Ireland goes on and on and on.

I am aware that the death penalty still applies in Southern Ireland under the Criminal Justice Act and the Offences Against the State Act there. But that is Southern Ireland's business. Northern Ireland is our business and should be brought into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The death penalty is not relevant to the Northern Ireland situation and it should go.

Our duty is to press on along the political path, with all its difficulties. None of us can yet see the conclusion that we all wish to see. There are no easy solutions—certainly none to be had by imposing the death penalty in the sense in which the Bill as drafted would have done. The Government are right, and I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause which the Government, by the logic of events, have seen fit to bring before us.

The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said that there are no easy decisions and solutions in Northern Ireland. But if the Labour Government in 1969 had faced the situation and had not been afraid of the possibility of death in confrontation with the IRA, we would not by now have had a total of 788 people killed in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman made a powerful and emotional speech. He referred constantly to the terms "Protestant" and "Roman Catholic". But we are not debating in terms of religion, and I hope that the Committee does not decide the issue in terms of religion. I regret that the hon. Gentleman dragged in religion in this way because what we are debating is the safety of life in Northern Ireland.

I have taken a stand on capital punishment. In 1965, I voted in favour of its retention but subsequently decided that I had been wrong, and I wish to state that to the Committee today. I abstained recently when my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) submitted his Ten Minute Rule Bill, which would have reintroduced capital punishment for certain offences. For some time now, I have firmly believed that the supreme penalty which the State can impose on a wrongdoer is not in normal circumstances an effective deterrent to those who commit murder.

The evidence is imprecise and not clear, but I am prepared to change my mind if sufficient evidence is adduced to show that the death penalty is a genuine deterrent. The evidence would have to be very strong indeed, however, before I could agree to the judiciary having the power to extinguish a human life. But again I emphasise, "In normal times" in talking in terms of England, where even the shooting of one policeman in Blackpool created a hue and cry throughout the country and a demand for law and order in Great Britain.

But in Northern Ireland we face a totally different situation. The great majority of hon. Members of the Committee represent constituents in the United Kingdom, which are free from the terrible, obscene violence we face daily in Northern Ireland—violence encountered by ordinary citizens as well as by members of the security forces. The Committee should therefore think of the protection of those people and remember its duty to them if this issue comes to a Division tonight, as I hope it will.

Is not the hon. Gentleman's argument somewhat confused? Incidents of extreme violence associated with Northern Ireland have taken place in Great Britain. Happily, they have, to some extent, been isolated, but they have occurred. Does the hon. Gentleman draw a distinction of principle between the occurrences in Aldershot and more recently in London and the general situation in Northern Ireland? Surely, if we do not apply capital punishment in Great Britain, notwithstanding that sort of provocation, how can it be right to apply it in Northern Ireland?

I have always believed that almost all Acts passed by the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom should apply in Northern Ireland. I say, "Almost all" because there are some to which I would take exception. But I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with his question later rather than out of context with what I have to say now.

Had the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart sought to introduce reached its Second Reading, I should have listened carefully to the evidence and the arguments, but he was defeated on a free vote and was refused permission to introduce it. That seems to have prompted the Government to give the advocates of capital punishment a slap in the face. That is how I interpret it, although, as I say, in the United Kingdom context I am against the restoration of capital punishment unless there are strong arguments to show that it is a genuine deterrent.

Not only have the Government given the advocates of capital punishment a slap in the face, but at the same time their decision seems to throw a sop to the IRA terrorists. On Second Reading of this Bill, the Secretary of State said— although capital punishment had been abolished in Great Britain—that the Government did not think it appropriate in the Bill to make a permanent change of this kind. Their change of mind came only after the defeat of my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart. It is remarkable that the new clause was introduced only after that defeat.

I do not have to remind the Committee that these are not ordinary times in Northern Ireland. There, we do not just have the occasional atrocity such as that at Aldershot. Our sympathy goes out to the bereaved relatives and friends of those who died in the Aldershot explosion. But far more people have died in Northern Ireland, more are dying and more will die. We must face it and admit that it will go on for some considerable time unless strong and determined steps are taken to wipe out the IRA.

Indeed, these are extraordinary times. There is murder, and there are terrible mutilations, shootings and explosions— all part of a callous terrorist campaign which has been going on for four long and bloody years. As a former Home Secretary said, we are at war with the IRA. Unless the Secretary of State has secretly negotiated some truce, presumably we are still at war with the IRA.

In my view there is no sinister connection with any Ten Minute Rule Bill of the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor). I deplore a Protestant or a member of the IRA killing a policeman, but the hon. Gentleman is deploying his argument in terms of the IRA. Surely the turning point for the Secretary of State was a Protestant killing not a Catholic killing.

I mentioned the IRA terrorists because I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of the security forces and those who advise Her Majesty's Government that the great majority of those who have been killed— indeed, I would say 90 per cent. of them —have been killed by members of the IRA. I do not think that that would be disputed from the Government Front Bench. In fact, it may be an understatement. It may well be more than 90 per cent. Let us talk in terms of the IRA, but I apply my remarks to Protestant as well as Roman Catholic. I would much rather that these terms were not introduced in this debate because it is creating an emotional atmosphere and dividing the House into those who favour the union and those who are against it. I hope that the House will ignore these terms.

The hon. Gentleman let fall a suggestion a moment or two ago that the Secretary of State had secretly negotiated a truce with the IRA. I thought that was the implication. If it was not, perhaps he would explain what he meant.

If I could explain before the right hon. and learned Gentleman——

Order.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain now, because as it stands it seems a most grave suggestion.

I pointed out that a former Home Secretary—was it two years ago?—said that we were at war with the IRA. What I said was that, unless the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has secretly negotiated a truce, we are presumably still at war with the IRA, and therefore we need the strongest possible measures. That is what I am saying. I trust that this is perfectly understood.

If there were any kind of insinuation in my hon. Friend's remarks—and, of course, I accept that there was no such insinuation—I can give the absolute, categorical answer that there is not the smallest vestige of truth in such an insinuation. I hope there will be no further nonsense of that sort, if there were any.

I have not made any insinuation and I am sorry that the shadow Attorney-General was unfortunately not paying attention to my words. I was saying that we must be determined if we are to destroy the terrorists in Northern Ireland.

This is a time when the security forces need all the help that organised, decent society can provide. Yet this is the time when the Secretary of State chooses to abandon a legal sanction of powerful psychological value to the policeman on the beat, the soldier on duty in the streets and their wives and families at home either in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom, every day expecting the dread news of another killing.

In my opinion, this measure will be widely interpreted in Northern Ireland as another surrender to the terrorists. The Secretary of State proudly stated at the Dispatch Box in introducing this new clause that there is a deterrent of death already in Northern Ireland because in battles the security forces shoot and kill members of the IRA. We have had the figures from the hon. Member for Leeds, South. They show that 788 people have died in Northern Ireland since 1969 and that of these about 250 have been police and soldiers. But fewer than 100 terrorists have been killed by the security forces. Thus it is not such a powerful argument that the Secretary of State is placing before the House—that we have had 788 people killed since 1969 and yet, on the other hand, fewer than 100 of these gunmen, these obscene thugs, have been killed.

Nobody has accepted that figure of under 100 because nobody can conceivably know the answer to that question.

Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or his hon. Friend when he winds up the debate will try to give an approximate figure to the House.

Instead of weakening in the face of this fearful onslaught, the Government should be showing great resolution and determination. It is not the principles of Wolf Tone which activate the Republic terrorists but the life-style of Al Capone. Those with this love for the spilling of blood, this love for violence, this love of robbery—these are the people who at the moment are terrorising a whole community, part of the United Kingdom. Seventeen-year-old youngsters blow themselves to pieces carrying bombs, ft is horrible, but how many innocent people did they help to kill before fate disposed of them?

The Secretary of State has declared his intention to sound out local opinion in Northern Ireland. Perhaps he can tell the Committee whether he sought the views of the Advisory Commission on this new clause. We are facing elections to the new Assembly on 30th June, which is not very far off. Would it not have been appropriate for my right hon. Friend to show confidence and faith in that new body by asking its members for their views on the death penalty during these dreadful times? Why this rush now to push this clause through?

Extradition is a one-way ticket to the Republic of Eire. There is no evidence that the Government of the Republic will reciprocate the actions of the Northern Ireland courts. And, as we have heard, the death penalty is still in existence in the Free State. It has been argued that there is the threat of instant death from the security forces for members of the IRA or any other terrorists who use guns in Northern Ireland and kill. But on past performance, as we know, the two IRA men who crossed the border recently to murder the UDR corporal at Aughnacloy, if they are ever arrested in the South—and I have my doubts—will be charged with no more heinous an offence in the Republic than that of being members of an illegal organisation. And if Northern Ireland seeks their extradition it will not be granted because their dastardly crime will be regarded as a political offence. In the eyes of the politically motivated courts in the Republic, the murder of a British soldier or a British civilian is regarded as a political crime, and political crimes are not covered by the extradition treaty.

We are talking about the removal of the death penalty. It is a ridiculous position where an IRA man can be shot by the Army or by the police during a gun battle but cannot be hanged for terrible murders after a fair and proper trial by the courts in Northern Ireland. Yet although soldiers are liable to be hanged for certain offences the IRA are to have that sanction removed.

4.30 p.m.

May I mention one example in particular because the hon. Member for Leeds, South castigated my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart? Three young Scottish soldiers—have we already forgotten them?—were deliberately brought to the outskirts of Belfast by a coldly calculated plan and each shot in the head —two young brothers and another young soldier. The IRA man who is regarded is being principally responsible is at liberty, as I understand it from information, in the Irish Free State. That was a cruel, calculated deed. Surely the death penalty ought to be retained for such a fiend.

I am talking about such atrocities. I am not talking about ordinary murders where my right hon. Friend or his successor as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can reprieve a person convicted of murder if the circumstances so warrant. All religious leaders in Northern Ireland and politicians of different hues in Northern Ireland have condemned some IRA murders as being atrocities which shame the name of Northern Ireland and shame the name of Christianity and civilisation. One recent instance was a murder which was carefully planned and in which two young girls were involved, the carefully planned, brutal bedside murder of three soldiers in Belfast.

Those girls deserve no sympathy. They do not deserve the sympathy of anyone in this Committee or any person in this country. Are they to escape with their lives if they are ever foolish enough to come from the South to Northern Ireland so that they can be arrested and tried? That is an example of what I am talking about. Surely they ought to face the final sanction.

The Secretary of State has power to reprieve any condemned man, as he did in the case of Brown, but there are some cold-blooded murderers who should, in my opinion, pay the supreme penalty.