asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to improving rates of pay of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

The rates of pay in the Royal Ulster Constabulary are substantially the same as for all police forces in Great Britain, and are negotiated at the Police Council for the United Kingdom.

Is the Minister aware that for all ranks except that of chief inspector the rates of pay of the Royal Ulster Constabulary are below those of the police in the rest of the United Kingdom? Is he also aware, however, that the reason why the pay is higher is that the RUC does so much rest-day working?

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The salaries negotiated in the Police Council for the United Kingdom are for the whole of the United Kingdom.

While I realise that the announced withdrawal of 500 troops may be a routine troop movement, is it not the case that it is necessary to increase recruitment to the RUC if the Army is liable to be phased out at a later date? Will the Minister give an assurance about this and say what progress is being made in recruiting Roman Catholics to the RUC?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that as the troop levels are reduced the RUC will have to be built up. Recruitment is going well. Since September the force has increased by 137 recruits. They are totally new people. That figure takes account of wastage. We should like to see more RUC members recruited from the Catholic community. We do not keep records of whether RUC members come from the Catholic community or the Protestant community. We appreciate the difficulties which Catholics face.

Is it not impractical that in a situation such as we now find in Northern Ireland these records should not be kept?

We have always taken the view that we should not keep records of this sort. It would be entirely practicable if we wanted to do so, but we have never done so.

Will the Government bear in mind that it is the earnings which matter to the men? Following a period in which, owing to the extreme shortage of members of the RUC, there has been a great deal of overtime, overtime has become an established part of earnings, and this must be taken into account as a fact in considering future improvements of the scales.

There is no doubt that the RUC has worked substantial overtime during the period of the emergency. If there were an end to the emergency, that aspect of the matter could be reviewed and would be borne in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to the Gardiner Committee's proposal for an independent means of investigating complaints against the police and for the possible extension of such procedures to deal with complaints against the Army.

We intend to introduce in Northern Ireland an independent element into the procedure for dealing with complaints against the police. My right hon. Friend is considering an interim report from the working party set up to consider this. It recommends that any new procedure should follow the adoption of a new procedure in Great Britain.

While I welcome the Minister's statement, may I ask whether he accepts that many of us do not share the view that the matter should be delayed until action is taken in the remainder of the United Kingdom, where it is overdue? Does he not agree that it is important, not only for restoring the confidence of some sections of the community in the police but also for avoiding the incident centres being used as complaints machinery, for which they are entirely inappropriate?

The incident centres are not used as complaints machinery against the police. Some people are in favour of proceeding in Northern Ireland ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is anxious to get this matter right. It is a contentious issue. When we have found a solution, it is desirable that it should be applied similarly throughout the United Kingdom. For that reason we are not making an announcement at this stage. I agree that it was the view of the Gardiner Committee that this would improve the acceptability of the police in certain sections of the population in Northern Ireland. We certainly intend to introduce an independent element and to do our utmost to ensure its acceptability.

Will my hon. Friend consider the recommendation in the Gardiner Report that there should be an end to the quasi-judicial procedure which takes place before custody orders are made, on the basis that this brings legal procedures into contempt? Does he agree that it would be better if these orders were made by executive action only?

All these aspects are being studied, but if my hon. Friend wants a specific answer to those questions, which do not arise from the Question on the Order Paper, perhaps he would like to put down a Question.

Will the Minister be assured that in Northern Ireland there will be widespread support for his view that whatever complaints procedure is adopted should be in line with that adopted in the rest of the United Kingdom?

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the arrangements for the election of the Constitutional Convention.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied with the state of arrangements for the elections to the Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention.

The election will be conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 and of the Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention (Election) Order 1975. I am satisfied with that.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we on this side of the House are grateful to him for offering to arrange an all-party visit to view the elections? To what extent will it be possible for the Royal Ulster Constabulary to perform the duties that were carried out at the local government and Assembly elections and at the Border poll by the Regular Army and the UDR?

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the visit. I believe it is important that hon. Members from both sides of the House should be there. The arrangements for the security of the polling stations and the count centres are the responsibility of the RUC, which may call upon the Army for assistance. I have no reason to think that the RUC will not be adequate for these duties.

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what will be the position of the Westminster Members from Northern Ireland in the Convention election machinery? Is he aware that there is satisfaction with the manner in which the Chief Electoral Officer, his deputy returning officer and staff are carrying into effect the wishes of Parliament and with the part played by our fellow Members who are offering themselves as candidates and are, therefore, unable to be with us as frequently as would otherwise be the case? What will be the date of the first meeting of the elected Convention?

I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's words expressing satisfaction about the work of the independent Chief Electoral Officer. It is not for me to comment on the activities of any of my colleagues who are seeking election elsewhere. The date of the first meeting is entirely a matter for the Convention.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fundamental problem in Northern Ireland is the whole process of democratisation? He knows that I have asked this question many times before. While I accept that an attempt is being made to bring the Convention into being in a democratic manner, I think my right hon. Friend will agree that it could result in the cementing of existing divisions. Without giving me a complete answer now, can he assure us that, side by side with this, the processes of democracy are going on, which in the last analysis are the only processes that can resolve the problem?

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. Democracy is a subtle form of government in some respects. It may well be that, on one basic meaning of the word, democracy has been taken too far in that many people are involved outside the law. The people of Northern Ireland will not be preached to on this matter. Democracy must arise out of Northern Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied with the co-operation of foreign Governments in preventing the illegal entry of weapons, ammunition and explosives into Northern Ireland.

So long as any illegal weapons and explosives reach Northern Ireland from outside, I cannot be wholly satisfied with the situation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House, according to the evidence in his possession, which countries the ammunition, explosives and weapons are coming from and what representations the Government have made to the countries from which they are coming?

There are many views about the country of origin of the arms. There is a large number of spare arms around in Middle Eastern areas. In answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), I said that during 1974 2,112 lb. of commercial explosive made in the Irish Republic was found in the North, and 243 detonators. I get a great deal of co-operation from the Government of the South in this respect. Arms come into Northern Ireland with money provided in all parts of the world. If the money could be stopped. that would do a great deal of good to Northern Ireland. Many people think that the money is being contributed for respectable purposes. but it is being provided to kill.

As it is known that some of the arms used against British soldiers in Northern Ireland have come from Libya, will my right hon. Friend tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that if we sell any arms to Libya they are not used against British soldiers and British interests?

It would add a new dimension if we had submarines on Lough Neagh, but I shall make sure that my hon. Friend's view is passed on.

What representations have been made to the American authorities about the money which is collected in America for fighting in Northern Ireland? What replies and assurances has the right hon. Gentleman received from the United States Government?

The matter is, of course, not my basic responsibility. The money comes from all parts of North America. In many respects, both sides in Northern Ireland get help from North America as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is not unaware of the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Is it within the recollection of the Department that last April I put forward certain circumstantial suggestions that a good deal of money was coming from the city of Toronto? Can anything be said about the liaison with the Canadian Government on this difficult and complex matter?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, who is present, has made representations on all these issues, and the authorities are aware of the problem involved. What I was trying to indicate just now was that many people think they are contributing to the care and sustenance of innocent people, whereas the money is going into the provision of arms.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of bacon pigs and beef cattle smuggled out of Northern Ireland in each of the last three months; and what steps are being taken to reduce the number.

It is obviously not possible to estimate illegal movements with precision. However, the numbers of animals moved illegally over the first three months of the year may have amounted to some 15,000 in the case of cattle and 60,000 in the case of pigs. With permission, I will circulate in the Official Report details of an estimate by months.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we very much welcome the grant that has been made to the Northern Ireland bacon factories, which will enable them to compete on equal terms, but does he also realise that the Eire authorities deny that any smuggling is taking place? Has he any comment to make on that?

Discussions about the matter are going on with the Eire authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he considers that his terms for the reduction of the activities of the security forces and the release of internees are being met; and if he will make a statement.

The rate at which I release detainees and the activities of the security forces continue to be related to the level of violence prevailing.

While I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in that most of his recent problems have been of a tit-for-tat sectarian nature, may I say that in the southern part of my constituency the head postmaster was murdered at Silverbridge, a UDR patrol was mined at Whitecross, 20 other shootings and ambushes have taken place and the IRA has closed its so-called incident centre? Is not all this an acknowledgement that at least in that area the IRA has rejected the cease-fire?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about closing the incident centre, but he is being fair when he isolates the tit-for-tat and internecine killings and bombings that go on in Belfast and also isolates the problem in one part of his constituency. It is one that concerns me a great deal, because we have not had a genuine sustained cessation of violence. I am concerned about the point that the hon. Gentleman properly made concerning the Belfast area. There is a certain amount of inter-organisational violence going on in that part of the Province. I want to stop that as much as I want to stop violence in other parts of the Province.

What evidence is there that the detainees who were released at Christmas have engaged in further violence?

The amount of violence on the part of the Provisional IRA is extremely small. However, in terms of actual involvement I have no figures. The short answer concerning figures of involvement is that I have no evidence. The question arises of the possibility of violence. In the same way, with the Loyalist detainees whom I have released there is violence of an internecine nature. However, I have no evidence of any re-involvement there, because mostly the policing is of a nature which is different from the involvement which goes on in the Republican areas.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Lieutenant-General Sir Frank King is by no means alone in his anxiety lest the hard terrorist core be prematurely released? Will he consider whether it might not be better to lay down that a stated number of months of tranquility should elapse before further releases take place?

As I indicated recently, there is anxiety about the reinvolvement of anyone who has been detained. When I have detained persons—like other Secretaries of State—it was only on the evidence of involvement or suspicion of involvement in violence and not for political reasons. Of course there is anxiety. However, I am not prepared to deal with the ending of detention in this block way. I must deal with it on an individual basis and on the same individual basis as I deal with each case in the first instance. Nevertheless the speed with which it happens must be related to the amount of violence that occurs and to any evidence I may have—which I cannot reveal—bout the movement of arms, the restocking and the training that goes on. I have to take account of that factor in judging whether a cease-fire is genuine and sustained.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in the matter of the release of detainees some hon. Members will back him to the hilt against all criticism?

I am grateful for that. It is not a matter of criticism. I must make a value judgment in the way I indicated recently. It is a difficult decision to take. My hon. Friend will recall that in July 1974 I said that I was beginning, following the fall of the Executive, small releases in conjunction with the releases carried out by the commissioners. Since 22nd December I have also carried out releases without the commissioners except on a marginal basis, since they are not involved any more. Some 400 people have been released since last July. I wish that those 400 releases had been measured against far more peace in the Province over that period.

In view of the continuing level of violence and of the undoubted pressure that the Convention elections will impose on security forces, is this the time, as The Times reports, for security forces to be reduced by a further 500 men?

There may be a return to violence on the part of the Provisional IRA. The violence in Northern Ireland is largely between the UDA and the UVF and between the Irish Republican Socialist Party and the Official IRA. There are inter-sectarian killings.

Reverting to the question of hard core detainees, will the Secretary of State give an approximate estimate of how many remain in detention and should not be released at present? Will he also say whether the public inquiry into the new prison has yet been completed and when the report can be expected?

The public planning inquiry into the prison is complete. However, I have not yet received a report from the inspector. The orders relating to the large number of people whom I have released from detention and to the large number of people in respect of whom I have signed detention orders have always been made on the basis of involvement. Every one that I have signed has been on the basis of involvement. Otherwise I would not have the right to sign the interim custody orders.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has received the report on the inquiry into the recent escape of prisoners from Newry courthouse; and if he will make a statement.

An inquiry under the Prison Code of Discipline held on 26th March 1975 found two prison officers guilty of neglect of duty. My right hon. Friend is now awaiting their appeals against this finding.

When the appeal is disposed of will the Government make a statement covering the facts and the circumstances as found, since that would be the best way—if not the only way—o deal with the natural anxiety which this incident has caused?

The Government will certainly consider that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the security situation in Northern Ireland.

The Provisional IRA maintains its cease-fire. But acts of violence continue, some the result of feuds between extremist groups in both communities and others apparently of a sectarian nature. Thirty-nine people were killed between 1st January and 1st April this year and 391 were injured. Between 1st January and 14th April this year 318 people were charged with terrorist offences, of whom 42 were charged with murder. Large quantities of arms, ammunition and explosives are being recovered.

The Secretary of State has reminded us yet again that he has released a large number of detainees in the hope that the tenuous cease-fire will be maintained. Can he say whether the position of those ex-detainees will be reviewed if the cease-fire breaks down completely? Is he aware of the widespread concern at the possibility that those who dislike democracy will be anxious to commit outrages shortly before polling for the Convention takes place.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not give ideas to people who read avidly, I understand, the remarks and views which are expressed here, sometimes without understanding the nature of the way in which we proceed. There is a danger of that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that internment without trial is a continuing source of friction in Northern Ireland and possibly a continuing barrier to the preservation of peace? When the existing legislation is due for renewal, will he introduce an order for a yet further six months' renewal of the existing legislation or will he press for a debate on the Gardiner Committee's report, since the orders which he has introduced have always been produced with the background knowledge of the Gardiner Report being prepared?

It is my expectation that the new legislation will be based on the Gardiner Report. As an abstract discussion, the ending of the detention—it is not without trial, though it is not the best or the normal trial, and that is why the Gardiner Committee recommended the ending of it—

It cannot be called a trial. It is before a commissioner.

If I ended detention at a stroke, to coin a phrase, it would lead to civil war in the Province the following morning. That is the judgment I have to make.

With the Convention elections very close at hand, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the transfer of the Price sisters to Armagh gaol was a good move? Does he consider that gaol secure enough for prisoners of this sort? Will he say why he was not prepared to allow me to visit Armagh gaol during my recent visit to Northern Ireland?

With regard to visits to prisons by Members of Parliament in general, I followed the rules for the hon. Gentleman as I would for anyone else. As for the Price sisters, this was an arrangement reached in discussion with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I stand by it. It would be foolish for me to talk in public about security arrangements at the prison.

In light of the coming Convention elections, does the Secretary of State agree that there has been a threat from the Provisional IRA of a boycott of them and of intimidation of people taking part in them? In the light of the incident centres being established in Catholic areas, does the right hon. Gentleman further agree that there have been fewer Army patrols in those areas? Can he guarantee to the people in those areas that they will be provided with additional security when they go to polling stations on election day, in view of these threats?

The security authorities are aware of the overall problems involved in people going to the poll in all parts of Belfast. I have noted the cry to boycott the Convention elections, and people must make up their own minds with regard to that cry. We shall just have to see at the end of the day what the result shows. Intimidation, not in an electoral sense, is something which I find in non-Catholic areas as well as in Catholic areas.

Will my right hon. Friend cast his mind back to his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)? Whatever the merits or demerits of internment, does he agree that it is not good enough to say that people are released after a form of trial when an accused person does not see the evidence against him, when he has no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and when he has no proper opportunity to challenge the decision of the commissioner? This cannot be called a trial. It is better and more honest to call it internment.

That is why I hope to make a change in the forthcoming legislation. But I was merely saying that under the present legislation there is a form of trial, and those are the words which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) used.

Will not our constituents get a false impression if they suppose that the only terrorism going on in Northern Ireland is either internecine or sectarian? Are there not still IRA operations from time to time, especially near the border?

There have been two incidents claimed by the IRA. There have been a small number of other incidents where, for understandable reasons, my security advisers have not been able to tell me who was involved. All I say is that the overall campaign of the Provisional IRA in all parts of the Province since the cease-fire started again has been on a pretty muted scale.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the original terms of appointment of Mr. Ivan Hoppe as managing director of Harland and Wolff.

The terms of appointment of Mr. Hoppe were embodied in an agreement made in 1971 by Harland and Wolff Limited. This is still a limited liability company in which the major shareholding is still in the private sector. Furthermore, correspondence has been exchanged with solicitors acting on behalf of Mr. Hoppe. In these circumstances it would not be proper to divulge details.

That is an interesting reply. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would care to confirm two points. First, can he confirm or deny that the same company which so gallantly lent the services of Mr. Hoppe to Harland and Wolff also sold other services to the company and that, by a strange coincidence, Mr. Hoppe also happened to be a main shareholder in that company, so that apart from milking his director's fees he milked himself other fees as well? Secondly, can my right hon. Friend confirm or deny that Mr. Hoppe is still looking for payment in recompense for having lost his employment?

I said in my original reply that solicitors' letters were being exchanged on that last point. As for the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I think I am covered by what I said in my original reply. The future appointment of the new managing director will be on terms, I am sure, which will be acceptable to everyone.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the reception accorded his proposals for worker participation at Harland and Wolff contained in the discussion pamphlet "Industrial Democracy".

Yes. I have discussed the document at meetings of workers at Harland and Wolff, who have undertaken to put to me within two or three months proposals for implementation in the yard.

Will my right hon. Friend also impress upon the Harland and Wolff workers that his remarkable document gives them the opportunity not only to achieve economic solvency but to undertake a successful experiment in industrial democracy which could have helpful consequences for industrial democracy elsewhere and for political democracy in their own community?

I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. This week I had the opportunity to meet 600 members of middle management and 250 shop stewards, and we discussed both the document and the parliamentary statement. There is a chance here with this experiment for Harland and Wolff to be in the forefront of achieving industrial democracy in the United Kingdom, and I feel increasingly that the workers are becoming aware of this.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if he were to achieve the same degree of teamwork at Harland and Wolff as was achieved last night at Windsor Park, when Northern Ireland beat Yugoslavia, he would go a long way to coping with the problems of the shipyard? Will he congratulate them on that result and make every effort to ensure that the people of Belfast have every opportunity to emulate that example? That kind of teamwork, in all aspects of life, including industry will help solve problems in the future.

As we hope that England will play Northern Ireland shortly, I wonder on which side the hon. Gentleman will be on that occasion. It may be that Northern Ireland Ministers will not go over on that occasion. In this yard, with all its difficulties and its financial problems, the opportunities are immense. I have stated the Government's position before. This shipyard and its technology are crucial to the economic well-being of Northern Ireland. Therefore, a great responsibility rests upon its workers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about his discussions with the French Government on egg imports.

Talks with the French Government at official level were held on 25th February and 20th March and I gave details in my replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) on 4th March and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) on 26th March.—[Vol. 887, c. 368; Vol. 889, c. 169.]

Is the Minister aware that the uncertainty and distress in the industry continues? Will he confirm that his understanding of his officials' discussions with the French is that if the arsenical element is removed from feed produced and used in Britain our eggs will then be allowed into France? What will be the consequences for other sources of eggs imported into this country which contain arsenicals? Will the Minister clarify what the consequences will be for trade in both directions?

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the statement I made in the House rather late last night in the debate on the Eggs Authority Order when I announced that I had now received the agreement of the manufacturers to ban the use of arsenical compounds in the feeding and rearing of poultry used for commercial egg production. The feeding stuffs trade has been consulted in the last few weeks and has accepted the ban. The licences issued by the Ministry have been altered so that this use is no longer lawful. I have informed the French Government of this action so that, in accordance with the assurance already given, they will allow United Kingdom eggs free access to their market. That is of importance to the industry, because it means that we can resume the export of eggs to the French.

Does the Minister recall that during the debate last night allegations were made from this side of the House that French producers in their feedstuffs are allowed to use antibiotics, a use which is not permitted to British producers, and that eggs imported from France may contain elements of antibiotics which are not present in British eggs? Has the hon. Gentleman had time to examine those allegations? If not, will he assure us that he will make an early report to the House on the allegations that have been made?

We have no evidence on the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but we will keep the matter under review.

Have any representations been made to or received from Comissioner Lardinois in respect of this trade?

My right hon. Friend and I have gone very carefully into the allegations about discrimination, dumping and the use of the Equalisation Fund by the French to see whether this is unfair. An approach has been made to the Commission. I understand that on 10th April Mr. Lardinois asserted that the British market must adapt itself to the new element of competition from the French as there was no evidence that French eggs were being dumped. He added that this would hurt in the short term but he refused to acknowledge that any measures were necessary at the frontier. We are keeping the matter under review. The Commission is aware of the concern of the industry in this country.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the figures to the latest convenient date for the export of live sheep and cattle for slaughter from the lifting of the ban on 16th January 1975.

Up to 5th April, 23,216 sheep and 2,916 cattle for slaughter were examined before shipment, all to EEC countries.

Do not the figures, particularly for cattle, make utter nonsense of the allegations made in the House about the need to provide a lifeline for farmers? In the light of the new evidence of suffering, will the Minister now reimpose the ban on the export of these creatures?

We must keep this matter in perspective. We recognise the concern of the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends. Following the report of the "Midweek" revelations, my right hon. Friend took action and made a statement to the House last Friday, 11th April. We know that the French are taking action. We see no reason, with only one instance, to reimpose the ban generally.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, in the light of the statement made in the debate on the removal of the ban on the export of live animals for slaughter, requests were made to him to suspend exports to countries where there was prima facie evidence that animals were suffering as in the recent incident in France? Will he now urge his right hon. Friend to suspend trade with those countries until they can demonstrate that the existing regulations are being enforced?

I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. The fact is that the statement made by my right hon. Friend last Friday should give the House the assurance that it needs. We have the fullest assurance of the French and other EEC Governments that they are carrying out the wishes of this Government and Parliament as expressed in the debate on the O'Brien Report. We are keeping the matter under review.

Does the Minister agree that, if the law was broken in any way, it was the duty of the representatives of the RSPCA who travelled with the livestock right across France to report to the police or the authorities concerned?

I am sure that the RSPCA and other welfare bodies should do and are doing their jobs well. There is great co-operation between them and the Government.

asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received, since his statement to the House on 23rd January 1975, about his decision that the constitutional principle of collective Cabinet responsibility shall not apply to the Government's policy in regard to Great Britain's membership of the EEC.

Like my predecessor, I do not maintain a detailed statistical record of my correspondence, but, apart from a small number of letters from hon. Members, I have only traced one from the general public, namely, a letter which drew my attention to the 1932 precedent for the agreement to differ, which I had already studied in some detail.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, notwithstanding the respect which is felt for the former Minister of State, Department of Industry for the courageous stand he took last week, we on this side of the House support the right hon. Gentleman in his dismissal of that Minister? Is he further aware that the only way in which he will restore some semblance of credibility to the Government is by following that dismissal with the dismissal of all other Ministers in the Government and not replacing them?

I am deeply touched by the hon. Gentleman's reference to my hon. Friend. It has taken 13 months for the hon. Gentleman or any other Tory to say anything nice about the former Minister of State, which I have been doing all along. I do not regard the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question as constructive. I have no intention of doing what the hon. Gentleman suggested in respect of their invoking the right of an agreement to differ, which is widely supported in the country as a reasonable decision in the unique circumstances of this referendum.

Does my right hon. Friend agree in retrospect that, since my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) was not party to the Cabinet decision and that kind of collective responsibility, in the circumstances of a national referendum and debate it seems absurd in some areas of public opinion that we should not have had a freer debate in Parliament which would, in consequence, have given greater freedom to junior Ministers? Does he realise that he has probably enhanced the value of my hon. Friend the Member for Walton in the elections for the Labour Party Executive and that he will probably oust the Chancellor in consequence?

It is not for me to comment on the various dreams of my hon. Friend. The decision was taken by my right hon. Friends as a clear directive to all Ministers. One thought which perhaps escaped my hon. Friend when he framed his supplementary question was that I should have felt it wrong for a considerable number of Ministers, speaking from either the back benches or the Front Bench, so to monopolise the time of the House that, even in a three-day debate, back benchers would not have had the opportunities which they so fully enjoyed.

Does the Prime Minister recall that, following the 1932 agreement to differ, the Ministers who chose to differ subsequently resigned from the Government?

This is true. It had nothing to do with the agreement to differ. It was that even they with their not very queasy stomachs found it impossible to live with the Tories for very long.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on the EEC in the Beach Ballroom, Aberdeen, on 22nd March.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at the Beach Ballroom, Aberdeen, on 22nd March about the EEC and related matters.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on EEC matters at Aberdeen on 22nd March.

I refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) on 15th April.

May I ask about one aspect of the guidelines for Ministers which, in spite of the Prime Minister's previous reply, is still not quite clear? When he states that whenever necessary Questions will be transferred to another Minister, who has to make that decision? Is it the Minister, his private office or the Prime Minister?

That question does not arise out of the public speech I made on the EEC in the Beach Ballroom, Aberdeen—I did not know where it was—on 22nd March. The short answer, in view of the deep interest the hon. Member is taking in these matters, is that the Prime Minister will decide.

Does my right hon. Friend remember the very courteous reception he received in Aberdeen while he was expressing his views on the Common Market even though the majority of delegates, including myself, disagreed with his views? Does he also remember that unfortunately he had to leave the Scottish conference early and did not have the chance to listen to the views of the anti-Marketeers? Will he therefore make a special effort to give more heed to the views of Labour's anti-Marketeers at the special conference a week on Saturday?

I think my hon. Friend and all others who listened with very great courtesy to what I said on that occasion, and with continued rounds of applause for some of my comments, appreciated that I had to return to London because of certain international developments of which the House has since become only too painfully aware. However, I think that I could have forecast fairly well what the anti-Marketeers and others would have said in the debate, and it was noteworthy that, although a number of trade union block votes had been committed in advance, the vote of the constituency parties was perhaps rather different from what my hon. Friend thought.

Was the active participation of the Secretary of State for Trade in the anti-Market rally last Saturday, under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), in full conformity with the guidelines laid down by the Prime Minister to his Cabinet colleagues? If not, what action does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take?

I can find no record of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade or the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) speaking in the Beach Ballroom, Aberdeen—at least, not as yet. Of course, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) have strained the Question for the sake of some previously prepared supplementary question. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's previously prepared supplementary question is that nothing said by my right hon. Friend on that occasion was in any way inconsonant with the guidelines.

Those of us who were not at the Beach Ballroom, Aberdeen, and who are not obsessed with the question of the guidelines would like to welcome my right hon. Friend's speech at Cambridge last week when he stayed to the end of the conference and made a very stirring address in favour of the Market.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman), who is a Member of Parliament in part of the region from which many of the constituency parties present came. It was not, of course, in the Beach Ballroom, Aberdeen either. I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. Although there might have been a considerable number of delegates who took a different view from myself, they heard what I had to say with much more courtesy than I am getting from my hon. Friends here this afternoon.

In his speech the Prime Minister said he would ensure that Ministers' attention and energies during the referendum campaign would not be diverted from the economic and social problems of the country. Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider doing a W-turn on that policy as it might help to reduce the borrowing requirements of £9 billion if certain Ministers had their attention and energies diverted from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer indirectly described as their Rake's Progress in office?

I am one who loves Conway, but that question was about as convoluted as any that have come from the hon. Member, and I regret having failed last year to dislodge him when I came and spoke on behalf of his opponent at the General Election. [Hon. Members: "Try again"] I shall come again. There were about a dozen marginals last year where I had to make two visits before we got in.

Answer the question.

— complaining about what my right hon. Friends do when they are not on official duties. They had better sort these things out. Perhaps they could take the guidance of the Leader of the Opposition, who is very consistent on all matters.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his Chequers conference on poverty in Great Britain and the developing world.

Following the meetings which I held with representatives of national voluntary organisations on 10th May last year and 24th February this year, I undertook that the Government would do further work on the ideas which the representatives of the voluntary organisations had put forward and would hold a further meeting to discuss the outcome with them, probably at Chequers, during the summer.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and I welcome very much the initiative he has taken. Does he envisage as a result of the Budget that our overseas aid commitments will be diminished in any way, and what overall assessment has he made of the impact of the Budget on the poor in Britain, particularly the impact of further increases in nationalised industry prices?

Yes, Sir, and the reasons for that have been explained both before this week's Budget and during it in connection with the prices of the nationalised industries. One of the encouraging things about these meetings was that the charity organisations, as they have been called, were equally insistent on help for dealing with poverty in this country and abroad.

Is the Prime Minister aware that some of the organisations that he saw or were represented are not charities within the strict meaning of the law because one of their objects is to change legislation? Is he aware that since 1881 they have enjoyed certain tax provisions which for the first time have been taken away from them by the capital transfer tax? This will threaten a tremendous part of the donations to organisations like the One-Parent Family Group. Will he give this matter sympathetic consideration?

When I used the term "charities" as I did at these meetings, I did not mean it in the legal sense, still less in the condescending sense in which it is sometimes used, but in the strict biblical sense where charity is defined in a well-known passage. [Interruption.] I was speaking to those who understand these matters, not to the disciples of Chairman Mao where, I think, the book I have just quoted is banned in favour of the Red Book that the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) brought back from China a year ago.

Will my right hon. Friend note that many who are concerned about poverty in the developed world welcome his statement but that this question is important for trade as well as aid, and that his speech at Leeds was widely welcomed? If he were to take up the theme of trade agreements for raw materials at the conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in Jamaica, would not that show that Britain's concern for the underdeveloped world is best exercised through the Commonwealth and through aid links as my right hon. Friend envisaged in his speech?

What my hon. Friend has said is true. I regret that as part of a general reduction in expenditure the aid programme has been affected, even though it earlier received one of the biggest increases in provision and it is still a very big increase. I am always careful— am sure that my hon. Friend will be careful—to avoid identifying aid too much as the source of trade for our own country. Of course, it is a fact that this can happen, but aid must be considered on the merits of the aid programme itself, as I am sure my hon. Friend would be the first to agree.

On the issue of poverty, will the Prime Minister take note of the recent Department of the Environment report, based on census statistics, which indicated that urban deprivation in West Central Scotland was at a level equalled nowhere else in the United Kingdom? Will he use his influence to make sure that when the Scottish Assembly is set up it will have revenue-raising powers over Scotland's oil, so that that Assembly can succeed where successive Westminster Governments have failed?

On the first part of the hon. Lady's question, yes, of course I am aware of that report by the Department based on the census figures. She will be glad to know that this formed a very significant part of the discussions between my right hon. Friends and myself and many others with the Scottish TUC when we visited her country not very long ago. I do not, however, accept the conclusions that the hon. Lady draws from these important and serious facts, which all of us in the House are trying to remedy. I do not believe that her solution for them in terms of leaving the problem to the people or some putative government of Scotland is the right answer. nor do I believe that the people of Scotland want that to happen.

Appreciating as I do that the greatest fool can ask more questions than the wisest man can answer, and appreciating that I and other hon. Members fall into the former category and that the Prime Minister inevitably falls into the latter, may I nevertheless ask him in future at Question Time to accept the advice which Dr. Johnson gave to the Scottish Highlander: "Answer me yea or nay, sir, if your barbarous language permits of so subtle a distinction"?

I am delighted to feel that before addressing the House the hon. Gentleman has taken off his Jaeger dressing gown. I shall, of course, study the eminent quotation which he has delivered to the House. I seem to remember—I may, perhaps, have got his constituency wrong; he nearly did that himself—that, as he has referred to Prime Ministers, he succeeded a former Prime Minister, and the result of his following his own advice was that he scraped home with a majority of about 40 or 50.