asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current activities of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland.

The Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland has recently notified me of its decision to begin a general review of parliamentary boundaries in Northern Ireland.

I am glad to hear that. Will the Minister at the same time seek to amend the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 so that the number of seats for Northern Ireland is increased, not because of the emergency but for reasons of pure justice?

I accept that the number of seats for Northern Ireland was set in different circumstances. It is still the Government's aim—a long-term aim, I feel sure—to get a devolved administration in Northern Ireland.

And Scotland?

I am responsible for Northern Ireland, and I am glad that I am not responsible for Scotland as well. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has enough on his plate without including Scotland. I am responsible for Northern Ireland and in that sense we stick to the 12 seats.

Does the Minister realise that the people of Northern Ireland assume that the right hon. Gentleman is against an increase in the number of Northern Ireland seats because he puts party advantage before the democratic rights of the people of the United Kingdom?

I must admit that there are some hon. Members representing Northern Ireland whom I would not like to see duplicated here, but that is not the reason.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the level of violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland during the first three months of 1976, as compared with the first three months of 1975.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sectarian and political murders have taken place in 1976; and what measures he is taking to reduce the level of this terrorism.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been killed as a result of terrorist activity in County Armagh since 1st January 1976.

So far this year 111 persons have been killed as a result of terrorism. Of these, 92 were killed in the first three months, 45 of whom were the victims of sectarian or interfactional assassinations. Thirty people have been killed in County Armagh. Between 1st January and 31st March 1975 a total of 40 people were killed. There has been in 1976 some increase in the number of serious attacks against the security forces. There have also been attacks on prison officers, two of them fatal.

We are grateful to the Secretary of State for that detailed statement. Is he aware of the widespread concern in Northern Ireland about two figures he gave, the 92 people killed in the first three months of this year compared with the 40 killed in the first three months of last year? Is the Secretary of State able to give the people of Northern Ireland reassurance that the prospective rate of assassination and violence in the coming months will be lower than it has been in the past three months?

I thought that the House would like the details to appear in the Official Report. Of those killed, 45 were victims of sectarian or interfactional assassination, and that is a sizeable proportion. Yesterday afternoon when I drove past Shaw's Bridge in Belfast I learned that someone had placed a bomb underneath a table at which both Protestant and Catholic workmen were sitting. That bomb was put there to kill. I looked at the scene with the police. What on earth can one do to protect people from that sort of thing? If this is what the para-military groups want to do, it is by far the most difficult thing for the security forces to prevent.

When will the working party report to the Secretary of State and in what form will the report be communicated to the House? Has the working party considered the closer coordination of security functions between the RUC and the Regular Army and the UDR? In view of reports in the Sunday Times and elsewhere of troop withdrawals on a considerable scale after the marching season, can the Secretary of State inform us of the Government's intentions in this matter?

I have had a preliminary report from civil servants who report to me and a ministerial group. A great deal of it is the sort of information I should not like to see published. It would certainly be read with great interest by the Provisional IRA. I do not reject the possibility of publishing the report, but, on the basis of the preliminary report, it would be foolish of me to publish it unless there were further parts, which I have not seen, of general interest. Co-operation between the security forces and the police is a matter to be further considered. That is how to obtain the primacy of the police. I have seen many reports that the Army will be out of West Belfast by the end of the month. Like me, the Army and police feel it is hard to read this sort of article, often written by people who get information that a unit is moving out of West Belfast when it is doing so quite properly as part of a tactical redistribution of forces. I sometimes feel that the people who print this stuff are setting out more to help the Provisional IRA than anything else. The movement of forces is not information which should be bandied about, but I can assure the hon. Member that there is no question of pulling the Army out of West Belfast.

Would riot my right hon. Friend agree that no matter what security measures and precautions are taken—and I understand the terrible problems he faces—the situation in Northern Ireland does not seem to get any better? Would he not agree that a new political initiative is now absolutely necessary? Would he, for instance, consider calling a conference devoted exclusively to the problems of Northern Ireland and invite whatever forces he feels should be present?

I cannot use the word "better" in relation to the security situation, whose nature has changed considerably. The pure thuggery which is now going on would not be stopped if I found a political initiative. It is endemic and I do not believe that calling a conference would do anything to stop it. The Convention demonstrated the inability of the politicians in Northern Ireland to get together and our next steps must be slow but sure. There is no initiative to solve the Irish question waiting to be pulled out of a drawer in my Department. It is bad for Northern Ireland if we even give the idea that there is an initiative which the Secretary of State is not willing to pull out.

In view of the appalling statistics, which indicate that more than a quarter of the people murdered in Northern Ireland have been killed in my constituency, does the Secretary of State still consider that County Armagh is a special emergency area, as defined by the Prime Minister on 12th January? Can he give us a report on the effectiveness or otherwise of the seven steps announced on that date and say whether he thinks the withdrawal of Army vehicles to 10 miles north of the border in my constituency is likely to help?

I know nothing of the withdrawal of Army vehicles to 10 miles north of the border. When I was in the border area the other day, there were vehicles around. What the officer commanding that area decides to do is done in the full knowledge of the problems of the area. The two colonels of the regiments there are excellent. They know what they are doing. County Armagh is a special emergency area. I do not want to talk too much about the movement of soldiers, but the fact that I said in my statement that we are keeping the same number of troops in the area is an indication of our special concern for it.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, but do not the statistics show that this is likely to be a very bad year for explosions and explosive offences? Will he condemn the increase in UVF activity in regard to explosives? Does not the whole security picture show the futility of continuing talks with para-military organisations, which the Irish Minister of Justice so roundly and rightly condemned yesterday?

The hon. Member has a point about explosives. We have seized almost as much explosives this year as in the whole of last year, yet the explosions still continue. That shows how much of the stuff there is still around. However, the Army is doing very well.

When my right hon. Friend says there is no intention even to consider withdrawal from Northern Ireland, can he say whether that view, which he put forward so emphatically, is shared by all the Ministers in his Department?

Yes. It is shared emphatically by all the Ministers in my Department and in the Government. I have no doubt about that. If my right hon. Friend is talking about the withdrawal of the Army in the political sense of the term, I believe that that would be a recipe for disaster. However, the withdrawal of the Army is what I am about —though my aim of the past year or 18 months is best expressed as the primacy of the police. I look forward to the day when I can tell the House that there are fewer soldiers and more policemen in Northern Ireland and that the police are accepted throughout the Province.

Order. In view of the grave issues involved in this Question, I allowed very much longer questions and answers than is usual at Question Time. I hope we can now return to reasonable brevity.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to alter the number and structure of Government Departments in Northern Ireland.

Since the return to direct rule, the Department of Community Relations has been merged with the Department of Education; the Office of Law Reform with the Department of Finance: and the Department of Housing Local Government and Planning with the Department of the Environment. My right hon. Friend has no plans for any further changes, but he keeps the matter under constant review.

Is the Minister of State satisfied that the organisation of Government Departments no longer retains the makeshift, temporary character suggested by the fact that they were set up when there was a locally-based Executive in Norhern Ireland and Ministers did not have to answer to this House for four or five Departments each? Does he agree that it is important that the people of Northern Ireland should realise that this House governs Northern Ireland by a system of direct rule, not of a temporary character but established on long-term principles?

The functions of Departments and the allocations of responsibilities are always determined by the need to ensure that political and administrative requirements are met at any given time in the most appropriate manner.

I congratulate the Minister of State on his promotion and wish him well with his extended responsibilities. Has he any reforms of the administrative structure in mind which might avoid my having to trouble him three or four times a week on the subject of paving, lighting and such matters in my constituency, since I am the only democratically elected representative of the people on these subjects?

Not at the moment. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will still have to bother me about such matters.

Does my hon. Friend detect a feeling in Northern Ireland, especially since the departure to another office of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), that the Northern Ireland Office is not as important as it should be, that in some way it has become lower in the priorities in the restructuring now taking place? Will the person in charge of creating employment in Northern Ireland play as much attention to it as was paid to it by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), after a hard stint of hard labour, has been gone for only a few weeks. I thank my hon. Friend for congratulating me, but it was a funny way of doing so.

As regards the work carried out by the former Department of Community Relations, does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a fear that money is being given to organisations which are para-military in nature and which are working in various communities? Will he institute an inquiry as to where the money is going?

There is no need for such an inquiry. Community relations come within the Department of Education and are in its capable hands.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further consideration he has given to the manner of publication of statistics of: (a) terrorist offences and (b) arrests, convictions and sentences for such offences, and in particular to clear presentation of the relationship between the two series.

Statistics, including the number of indictable offences known to the police and those cleared up, appear in the Chief Constable's annual report to the Police Authority, which is published. In addition, a report "Statistics on Security", providing a range of security statistics, including persons charged, is issued by my Office on a quarterly basis. These reports are placed in the Library of the House. I am giving consideration to ways of making the quarterly figures more widely available by inclusion in the Official Report.

I am grateful for anything that will give a wider diffusion to these statistics, but will the right hon. Gentleman concentrate especially upon methods of presenting the degree of success attained in apprehending and convicting those who arc concerned with offences in a particular period?

There is one problem in that last respect which is very important —namely, that it is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The right hon. Gentleman will recall a very interesting debate on this matter in the House a few weeks ago. I want to see the collation given a wider distribution. To do so through the Official Report is a way in which I can bring it to the attention of right hon. and hon. Members.

I recognise the problems that my right hon. Friend faces in Northern Ireland. I remain on the subject of security, particularly the matters which have been brought about by the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which are not confined to Northern Ireland. Will my right hon. Friend investigate the arrest of James Rutledge, a Liverpool born and bred person who was arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act? The obvious implication of his release is that there was no cause for his arrest. Does my right hon. Friend recall that anxiety was expressed by Labour Members about certain aspects of the Prevention of Terrorism Act when it was introduced? The case of James Rutledge clearly demonstrates that anxiety.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. He has every right to raise it, but it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Unless I have it wrong, the incident did not occur in Northern Ireland and therefore it is not my responsibility.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of people made redundant who were technically based or skilled workers since the inception of direct rule in 1972, the number of new industries which have been introduced since 1972 and the number of jobs provided for the above category of workers in these industries.

During the period 1st January to 31st December 1975 a total of 23,764 workers qualified for payments under the statutory redundancy payments scheme; 54 per cent. of these were in manufacturing industries, but I have no information on their occupational skills.

Does the Minister accept that in view of the alarming statistics it would be of great benefit to Northern Ireland if he were able to persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence not to proceed with the proposed defence cuts as they relate to Antrim, Aldegrove and Sydenham? The cuts will add another 2,000 plus to the already unacceptable total of unemployment in skilled industries. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to encourage his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to pay a visit to Northern Ireland at the earliest possible moment to acquaint himself with the harsh realities of economic life in Northern Ireland?

Order. There is a Question on the Order Paper about that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.Defence cuts are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Those are going ahead. The Department has initiated a review of the economic condition of Northern Ireland. One of the aims of the review will be to provide more permanent long-term prospects of employment than exist under the present defence arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on his proposals for the development of positive direct rule.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to provide for additional facilities for informing Members of Parliament and the public about policy matters within the responsibility of his department.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further consideration he has given to methods whereby a more continuous surveillance of administration and security in Northern Ireland can be provided.

I am considering whether any changes are required in the arrangements for direct rule, including any additional facilities for keeping Members and the public informed. I have, however, answered 508 parliamentary Questions and nine Private Notice Questions between 1st November 1975 and 31st March 1976, and a wide range of papers and reports on Northern Ireland are available in the Library. The Government are responsible for all aspects of the affairs of Northern Ireland and have made it clear that they will provide firm, fair and resolute government.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as direct rule may last for a number of years there is an overwhelming case for increased representation for Northern Ireland, so that Northern Ireland may enjoy the same representation here as the rest of the United Kingdom?

I have answered that point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will notice that even if the law were changed and the Boundary Commission were to do its work on a larger remit, the change would not come into being until the General Election after next, so it could not have any immediate effect.

I welcome the Secretary of State's apparent slight change of heart over the possible new institutions as a result of direct rule. The under-representation to which my hon. Friend has referred, and the fact that Northern Ireland has neither an Assembly nor a Parliament, which is a decision of this House, mean that Northern Ireland must have its Questions answered roughly every three weeks for three-quarters of an hour, while the problems of the Province remain matters of life and death. In those circumstances I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the setting up of a Select Committee. Within its confidential intimacy the problems of the Province might reasonably be discussed and probed so that Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland might receive adequate answers from Ministers.

Of course Northern Ireland is different: we have the great problem of terrorism in Northern Ireland. The Province consists of 1½ million people and it has a Department to look after it. It is smaller than Yorkshire or Lancashire. In that sense it does very well in the House. It is because of the particular problems of Northern Ireland that the difficulty arises. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the 'phone calls to my outer office are about Northern Ireland. The vast majority of the letters that I am receiving are to the effect that their senders go for direct rule. They give reasons for taking that view. That is the general view that has come out of Northern Ireland.

I do not dissent in any way from what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier about solutions and initiatives, but does he recognise that consideration has to be given to the provision of a wider scope for local government in the normal sense of the term in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that that would lead to a great improvement and alleviation of administration?

On the point about local government and the fact that under the Macrory Report changes were made, putting it into Stormont, one of the problems in that respect—it is not something that I am actively considering; I say this only because it illustrates the point—is that on the minority side of the community it is put to me firmly that the last thing wanted is a return to the local government functions in Northern Ireland. This is one of the problems. When one comes to do anything in Northern Ireland, one cannot look at it logically. There is the basic split in the community.

Has it been drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention that there are only 16 Questions on the Order Paper today relating to Northern Ireland, although on other occasions there have been somewhat more, and today there are only eight Questions from hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, which is roughly two-thirds of the number of Northern Ireland Members. The people of Northern Ireland, through their elected politicians, had an opportunity of finding some sort of administrative and institutional function which would have enabled them to look after these matters themselves, but they lamentably failed to do so. Therefore, it comes badly from Opposition Members to suggest otherwise.

I take note of what my hon. Friend says. It is a matter of note that hon. Members should consider my responsibilities for Departments of Education, Agriculture, Health and Social Security and right across the span. Ministers are working actively all the time in these matters, but the amount of interest in them expressed in the House of Commons is remarkably small. Even when there is a larger number of Questions, rarely are they on the subjects that I should have thought would exercise people in Northern Ireland.

In the interests of the whole House, may I ask the Secretary of State when he will act on my reiterated but quite simple suggestion that a list of Northern Ireland papers analogous to the list of European Community papers be circulated to all Members so that they may apply for them?

I shall certainly do all I can to help in that respect. I certainly had no problems when I was in opposition about getting all the papers on Northern Ireland that I wanted. It is a matter of going to the Library and having a look. I shall do what I can to help. However, I do not think that this gets to the nub of the very real problems that, I accept, are being raised about direct rule. For instance, I wish that the problems of education in Northern Ireland could be discussed. It may he seen, indeed, to be more than apposite to the problems of Northern Ireland. The opportunities exist, but they are not taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the amount spent per head on the promotion and provision of industrial development in Northern Ireland during the last two years.

I understand my hon. Friend is referring to the amount spent per head of population in Northern Ireland.

Does my hon. Friend consider that the people of Northern Ireland are adequately aware of the fact that in this important field, as in others, they are given markedly greater opportunity than that enjoyed by citizens in the rest of the British Isles? If he is not so satisfied, will he ensure that these benefits are repeatedly explained, perhaps in order to increase the revulsion against violence which has already been mentioned?

I am satisfied that the people of Northern Ireland are to a large extent aware that they get a better deal in these respects than do most other sections of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend's point will be borne in mind and publicised to them.

On what basis is the hon. Gentleman able to make those comments? Does he not agree that for any meaningful comment to be made on those figures we need equivalent figures for other peripheral deprived regions? Does he have those figures?

The hon. Gentleman's last question would be better addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. There is no doubt that far more aspects of industrial promotion are the subject of Government support in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman wished, I could provide him with a list, if he has not got the pamphlet from my Department of Commerce.

As my hon. Friend says that £86 per head is spent on industrial development in Northern Ireland, and as I represent part of the North-East of England, which has had problems similar to those of Northern Ireland, may I ask what is the comparable figure for the North-East?

I cannot tell my right hon. Friend the comparable figure for the North-East. He could obtain that by putting a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The problems in the North-East are not quite comparable with those in Northern Ireland. As well as a security problem, in Northern Ireland there is the periphery problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he has any proposals for strengthening the law relating to membership of illegal organisations; and if he will make a statement.

By virtue of Section 19 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 it is a criminal offence to belong or profess to belong to a proscribed organisation. The problem in securing convictions is that of evi- dence not a deficiency in the law. I am not satisfied that changes in the rules of evidence would be justified.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. However, is he aware that in view of the continuing level of violence many people in Northern Ireland feel that the law should be strengthened, and strengthened in much the same way as that which prevails in Eire, where there are special criminal courts for dealing with these people? In the case of Martin McGuinness, my constituents believe that such a strengthening of the law is long overdue.

I would rather not get involved in individual cases. What matters is the evidence of proof of membership. As I have said in the House previously, if I were to listen to the gossip in Northern Ireland, I should find that the number of people who believe that other people belong to para-military organisations is large; but that does not stand up in a court of law, and quite properly.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the very deep sense of frustration among all ranks of the security forces about the difficulty of getting effective evidence against men who plan murder of the rank and file? What consideration is he giving to making really large sums of money available for information that would lead to the conviction of these leaders?

When I first arrived in Northern Ireland I found that sums as large as £50,000 were available for information, but they were not taken up. Hon. Members must consider the history of informers in the Northern Irish situation. If, as the hon. Gentleman has done, one visits areas and sees painted on walls advice about what will be done to informers, one can appreciate that it is far better to handle matters in the present way now that information is coming. Certainly in recent weeks we are getting higher up the hierarchy in para-military organisations. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is the "godfathers" that we should like to have locked up. It is good to catch 16-year-olds firing Armalite rifles, but it is the organisers who are the men we want.

Does my right hon. Friend propose to take any action in relation to the criminal injuries legislation to prevent damages from being awarded to members of illegal organisations under that legislation?

I published a Written Answer yesterday, and I must not get involved in sub judice cases. If my hon. Friend would care to look at that answer and see the details of the legislation as it is, I think that he will find that the involvement point is met. However, on both of the Acts that I have to operate, under which the decisions are taken by the courts and not by me—not by a criminal injuries board but by the courts—certainly I can only say that there are times when decisions are as upsetting to me as they are to hon. Members. But the decisions are taken by the courts. I hope to amend the legislation when I get reports from the working party.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that now that detention is ended, an unspecified number of former detainees are becoming reinvolved in terrorism? For that reason this Question is very important, and the security forces need legal powers to bring people before the courts. Would not one solution be to amend the laws of evidence and the onus of proof with regard to membership of illegal organisations so as to strengthen the whole position of the law in this regard?

It is not only ex-detainees who return to violence. It is also ex-prisoners who have been properly sentenced who do so, when they come out. It is not just a matter of ex-detainees. I am looking at this problem. However, unless we can get in Northern Ireland a respect for the law by all the community, we shall not win through. Playing about with the law might sometimes be a means of dealing with our own frustrations, but I am absolutely con- vinced that it is only through the rule of law that we shall win through. Perhaps if it had been nearer the rule of law in the past we should not have had the problems that we have now.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many housing executive tenants, from the introduction of the rent rebate scheme to 31st March 1976, have made application for rent rebate; and how many have qualified.

I am advised by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that at 31st March 1976 18,985 tenants had applied for rent rebates. At this date 11,815 tenants were receiving rebates and 1,128 applications were being processed.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that in Northern Ireland there is a large proportion of low wage earners? Could he give an assurance that the rent rebate scheme will be based on net rather than gross income?

The scheme in Northern Ireland is on an exact parallel with that in the United Kingdom. Because there is a higher proportion of low wage earners in Northern Ireland, there should be more people on rent rebates than there are. I regret that they are not coming forward in greater numbers.

As the people already in debt to the Northern Ireland Executive do not qualify for the scheme, will my hon. Friend say how many people in Northern Ireland are on rent strike and are deliberately not paying rent? Can he give a list of the various estates involved, particularly in Belfast, so that we can estimate the number of people who are deliberately not paying rent?

Finding out who are the original rent strikers is difficult. The number is now so low that it is not worth sorting out. There has been a change in the number of rent defaulters which is now small compared with what it was.

Will the Minister indicate the percentage of squatters who would otherwise qualify for rent rebate?

Squatters do not qualify for rent rebate.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about employment prospects in the Province.

A precise forecast of employment prospects is not possible. In Northern Ireland they will depend to a considerable extent upon an upturn at national level. The extent to which Northern Ireland participates in the upturn will be heavily influenced by the political stability of the Province. At present the Government are taking all possible steps consistent with current economic policy to maintain employment and to create or promote new jobs. In addition an exercise to re-assess the economic and industrial strategy of the Province over the next few years is currently in hand.

Does the Minister realise that potential employers see that Government activity in Northern Ireland is closing down, or at least not helping to keep open, the Rolls-Royce factory at Dundonald and three defence establishments in Northern Ireland? They believe, as a result, that the Government have no confidence in Northern Ireland. Have not the Government a duty to show the world that they have confidence in the people of Northern Ireland and that they intend to keep those jobs going?

The Government are not reponsible for closing down the Rolls-Royce factory: that was a decision by the company. As for the closure of the defence establishments, it is right for people to look at the whole of Government involvement in Northern Ireland industry. The substantial sums that we are offering to people who settle in the Province and that they are spending there should be sufficient indication of the Government's confidence.

Is the Minister aware that cavity wall insulators have been afforded the right to operate in Great Britain since October 1975 under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act? Should not the same right be afforded to cavity wall insulators in Northern Ireland?

We intend to apply the regulations to Northern Ireland as soon as possible. The delays have been necessary because of the need to ensure proper consultations.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the reorganisation of British sugar refineries.

Consultations with the cane refinery companies and workers and with the British Sugar Corporation are continuing and I cannot yet add anything to my answer to the hon. Member on 18th March.

Has the Minister seen the joint paper published by Tate & Lyle and Manbre and Garton which shows that some sugar refiners will have to close and several hundreds of jobs will be lost because of the EEC restrictions on imports of cane sugar? How many jobs does he think will be lost, and where?

My right hon. Friend has been in close touch over a period of time with the trade unions, with Manbre and Garton and with Tate & Lyle on this matter. We are considering the proposals and hope to come to decisions by the end of May. We are involved in close discussions. The hon. Gentleman will know of the proposals by the two firms. The effect on lay-offs and employment will depend on the conclusions.

asked the Prime Minister how many Ministerial broadcasts he has made since his appointment.

One.

Does the Prime Minister remember making in his broadcast on 5th April a reference to the fact that he could not promise any real improvement in living standards for some time? Can he elaborate on that? Can people on low incomes expect any improvement in living standards before the next General Election, particularly in view of the Labour Party's manifesto promise that there would be an irreversible shift in the balance of wealth in favour of working people and their families?

The events of 5th April will be constantly in my mind and I doubt that I shall ever forget that day. The Budget was intended to protect families, especially this year, against the fall in the standard of life which this country is enjoying—if that is the proper word to use. That is an essential condition for getting us back into the position where the country will be able to enjoy an improved standard of life. Our first task is to ensure that sacrifices are fairly borne among all sections of the community.

Does the Prime Minister recollect that in his last ministerial broadcast he said that he would root out injustices and seek to put them right wherever he could? Will he tell the House whether he approves the sequence of events which led the Government to have a majority on Standing Committees, when they have only a minority in the House?

I have been studying "Erskine May" while sitting here listening to questions, and it is an interesting document. I understand that we are to have a debate on the matter, although my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will no doubt want to discuss that later. There is one consideration which needs to be taken into account. If the House has made a decision on Second Reading and therefore on the principle of the Bill, what does the House think should be the composition of the Committee set up to carry through the principles which the House has approved?

In that case, is the Prime Minister aware that he is totally repudiating what the Leader of the House said just before Easter, when on 13th April he said that in future Committees must reflect the numbers in the House of Commons? Is the Prime Minister repudiating that?

I am not repudiating it: I am adding to it. There is more than one principle at stake here.

Twister.

The right hon. Lady has not addressed herself to whether she believes that the details of a Bill which has been given a Second Reading by the House should be examined by a Committee to enable those principles to be carried through.

Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity not only to explain to the public in a ministerial broadcast his intention to carry on doing the job for which we were elected, to 1979 if necessary, but to deal with the growing public disquiet about the admission by British Petroleum that it made payments to political parties in Italy?

I hope that the question of a General Election is put at rest for the time being. If the Government were unable to govern, and if they were unable to get their legislation through. a different situation would clearly arise. Therefore, we shall just have to see how we go.

Having regard to Standing Order 62(2) I am surprised to note that the Prime Minister is not well aware of it, so perhaps I may elucidate for his benefit: it deals with the regard which the Committee of Selection must have to the composition of the House when it is making appointments to Standing Committees. Are we to take it from the Prime Minister's earlier answer that he believes that that Standing Order—and three seconds ago he was apparently asking what it was—has been complied with by the events of yesterday? Is he aware that the doctrine he enunciated would mean that many people who might wish to support the Second Reading of a Bill would not do so if they thought that the Committee stage thereafter would be rigged?

The Government have no influence on, and have played no part in, the decision of the Committee of Selection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), who has been a Member for 31 years, is responsible for what is done in that Committee. I understand that a debate will be arranged later, and then it will be for my hon. Friend to indicate the Committee's position and for the Government to indicate theirs. In the meantime, I suggest that the Opposition get over a little of their synthetic indignation.

Is the Prime Minister aware that in six years as Opposition Chief Whip and two years as Leader of the House I never heard the principle that he has just enunciated? The Standing Order to which the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) referred has always been the principle of the Committee of Selection. I hope that the Prime Minister will not start to introduce a totally new principle which has never been discussed through the usual channels.

I suggest that the House waits to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock has to say. My right hon. Friend the Lord President will no doubt be making a statement about future business in due course. I repeat—and the right hon. Gentleman had better accept it from me —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—if there are to be the relations between us in the future that have existed in the past—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that the Government have played no part in the work of the Committee of Selection. It is for the Chairman of the Committee to indicate its position. Now will the right hon. Gentleman please withdraw any reflections of that kind?

Is it not reasonable to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to intimidate me? If that is his purpose, he will find that it is a very unwise course for him or anyone else to pursue. I do not withdraw one word. What I said was perfectly simple—that the right hon. Gentleman was producing a new principle of which I had never heard before. Of course, I accept that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection is entitled to tell us why he did what he did. But I am equally entitled to tell the Prime Minister that he has introduced a new principle, without my being told that I am to be intimidated.

I have rarely met anyone who is less capable of being intimidated than the right hon. Gentleman, even in his most offensive moods. I do not expect to do that. What I am telling the right hon. Gentleman—and I think that he has accepted it—is that the Government have played no part in this. If that cannot be accepted, it will be a bad thing for relations between the two sides of the House. Therefore, I hope that it is accepted.

asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC and the CBI.

asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the TUC and CBI.

I hope to meet representatives of both the TUC and the CBI at the next meeting of the National Economic Development Council.

Whilst we all admire the Prime Minister's ingenuity in finding new principles, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the TUC and CBI, for which it is very relevant, how the Secretary of State for Energy can abstain in the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party on the Government's spending plans, with all the effect on international confidence that that has? Does not the principle of collective responsibility apply?

I am not finding new principles. I am restating old ones when I suggest that when the House has given a Bill a Second Reading, the Bill is supposed to be allowed to proceed in Committee. A similar principle applies to the doctrine of collective responsibility —that is, collective responsibility includes all Ministers, who must be willing to defend the Government's policies at all times.

My right hon. Friend rightly said earlier that sacrifices should be fairly borne. Does he not agree that in the last period the trade unions have fallen over backwards to accept sacrifices? Will he now clearly indicate that the other side of the coin is an extension of egalitarian principles and of public ownership—[Interruption]—and that the Opposition and their supporters in the country—big business—should also make their sacrifices?

I have repeatedly said—and I at once say again, despite the Opposition jeers—that the trade union movement is playing a most remarkable part at present. It ill behoves anyone on the Opposition Benches to jeer at what is being done.

If the TUC rejects the 3 per cent. pay limit, which the Government have said is imperative, will the Government cut by a similar percentage the proposed tax concessions? If they do so, will they tell the 10 million trade unionists who are members of the trade unions affiliated to the TUC whose fault it is that they are having their tax concessions cut?

The hon. Gentleman, as usual, is being helpful and I am grateful to him for the way in which he puts his remarks. We should first wait to see how those discussions turn out. The trade unions are trying to carry their members into a situation in which they will freely and voluntarily accept a level of wage increases this year that is inconceivably low by comparison with the situation a year ago, when nobody would have thought that possible. What I am anxious to do, as I hope is the whole House, is to help the trade unions to achieve that.

What special steps are the Government prepared to take to help school leavers, particularly in view of the fears about unemployment in the Merseyside area, to obtain jobs in the next year?

As the House knows, the Budget Statement contained a doubling of the temporary employment subsidy. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has been looking especially at the subject of school leavers, not only as to the situation on Merseyside, but in other respects. I believe that he is now undertaking discussions on this matter.

Will the Prime Minister reconsider what he said a few moments ago? Is he aware that nobody in any part of the House will doubt that the trade unions are playing a considerable part at present? What some of us are concerned about is the part played by Parliament. What proposals have the Government to restore the power of representative parliamentary democracy?

It would be open to Parliament, in the light of any voluntary agreement reached by the trade unions, to overturn it if it were foolish enough to do so. What the Opposition have totally failed to understand is that in these matters of Budget judgment for the year ahead the level of earnings is one of the central features to be considered. No Chancellor of the Exchequer can afford to ignore it when deciding on the other balancing factors in his Budget. Therefore, if a sensible agreement were reached with the trade unions, it would be foolish for anybody to seek to overturn it, because that would throw out the balance of the Budget as a whole.

Although I understand the Government's reasons for entering into these wage negotiations with the TUC, may I ask the Prime Minister who, if anybody, is representing the interests of those who will have to pay the wage increases?

Obviously, it will be for employers to decide what can be paid at the end of the day after negotiations with the trade unions. That is not a new principle but an old one. Last year some employers were unable to pay the full amount that had been agreed, but this is a process of collective bargaining.