asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement on the future of the Henry Moore statue, Knife Edge, which stands outside Parliament.

This sculpture was presented to the nation by Henry Moore and the Contemporary Arts Society in 1967 and the change in its position has now been made at their suggestion and expense.

Would it not be better for the reputation of this very distinguished sculptor if this statue were placed in a more suitable position? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it now stands on a black marble pedestal against a Gothic background, that this does not set it off properly, and that it ought to be moved elsewhere, perhaps to a sylvan setting? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider it?

There is no example of the work of this eminent sculptor in the centre of London and it is thought that there ought to be. It was desired to make the presentation a little better by putting it on a plinth and turning it round the other way.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will introduce legislation to curb the avoidance of tax and insurance payments within the building industry.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he intends to reintroduce the Construction Industry Contracts Bill, published in the last Parliament.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will introduce a Bill to deal with labour-only sub-contracting in the construction industry.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he proposes to make a statement on his policy on labour-only sub-contracting.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he will introduce legislation to end or restrict labour-only sub-contracting.

I have this matter under consideration and will make a statement in due course.

Could the Minister explain why he does not see fit to reintroduce the Bill which was brought in by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), the previous Minister of Public Building and Works? If not, does he intend to introduce legislation this Session?

All I have said is that I have the matter under review. The hon. Gentleman will recall that it took the previous Administration some five years to decide to bring in a Bill at all. Therefore, it is only fair that I should ask for a little time.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with the comment that it took us five years to decide, as he well knows. Dealing with the matter as it stands, is he aware that not only were both sides of the industry desirous that it should be dealt with speedily but that both sides of the House, by agreement, got the Bill through its Committee stage in four sittings? Does not he think that it is time that he took action to deal with this scandal?

The hon. Gentleman cannot describe as a scandal a matter which his Administration did not attempt to remedy for five years. I am in consultation with the industry about it. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, we on this side raised a number of reservations in Committee. It is only reasonable that we should give ourselves a little time. We are opposed to the concept of instant government.

Is not it clear that the Minister's answer is absolutely disgraceful? Even accepting that it took five years to introduce the Bill—which is not true, anyway—is not it clear that both sides of the industry have said time after time that this matter must be dealt with quickly, and is not it also clear that the right hon. Gentleman should bring legislation before the House at the earliest possible moment—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not regard it as important, but, as a building trade worker, I regard it as very important—

Order. Questions must be brief.

Then may I make the point? Will the Minister give us a clear answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), and say that legislation will be brought before the House this Session?

Until the end of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I found it difficult to elucidate which question he was asking. He has now made it clear. I have said that I have the matter under review and will make a statement in due course.

Why is it that while on major policy matters, such as sales of arms to South Africa and bringing back the eleven-plus, it is possible to make decisions in three days, the same cannot be done with a small Measure like this?

Small Measures are often difficult.

Of course, we all know the right hon. Gentleman's views on private enterprise, but does he not think that, when private enterprise is carried to the extent of a racket, dodging income tax and insurance payments, action should be taken? Can we have an assurance that he will take steps to end this racket some time in the next five years, preferably as soon as possible?

The hon. Gentleman's question would be more appropriate when I make my statement.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the Measure brought in by the Socialist Government was a steamhammer to crack a nut? Does not he consider that this problem can be overcome by introducing a system of registration similar to 56AB introduced in 1947, without the need for complicated, bureaucratic interference?

The considerations raised by my hon. Friend are among those which make me anxious to review the whole matter carefully.

May I first congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on taking over a very fine Department? Secondly, may I ask him to have consultations with his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), who introduced a Bill into this House in February of this year on the ground that too much time had already gone by?

I have already been in touch with my hon. Friend about it and his advice is a matter on which I shall lean.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many building trade operatives are unemployed; and what steps he will take to provide them with work.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what plans he has to reduce unemployment in the building industry.

In June of this year 93,718 persons were unemployed in the construction industry. The overall prospects are bound up with those of the economy as a whole. Meanwhile my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is seeking to stimulate demand for house improvements through the local authorities. My Department is encouraging the industry to renew its efforts in this direction.

The right hon. Gentleman must realise that that is not good enough. Will he press his Ministerial colleagues to take the brakes off house building, both private and council, so that the unemployed and ill-housed may both benefit?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will do my best in these directions. We hope to get back to the situation which prevailed in 1964, when only 41,872 persons, or less than half the present number, were unemployed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman follow the lead given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) and discuss the whole matter with the builders? Secondly, will he press ahead with discussions with his right hon. Friends on the abolition of S.E.T. at the earliest moment? Thirdly, will he see to it that the maximum assistance for house building is given to local authorities? Fourthly, will he follow up the suggestion of giving financial help to all small builders so as to get building going again?

I have already been in touch with representatives of both sides of the industry. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support in suggesting that we press on with the abolition of S.E.T.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he is taking to reduce the stock of bricks; and whether these will now be used for house-building.

I expect the brick industry to benefit from a general recovery in construction including housebuilding.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the average monthly stock of bricks since January of this year has been about 1,000 million? Would not it be sensible to try to employ the 93,000 out-of-work building operatives in picking 1,000 million bricks off the floor and building a few more houses with them?

We hope to get back to the situation which prevailed in 1964, when average monthly stocks were only 115 million. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing this to my attention.

Well done. Rub it in.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many Ministerial cars were in use in April, 1970 and how many drivers were employed; what were the comparable figures on 20th July, 1970; what changes in their number he will make; and what will be the effect on public funds.

In April, 1970, 63 Ministerial cars were in use, employing 63 drivers. The comparable figures for 20th July, 1970 were 57 cars and 57 drivers. The reduction in cars and drivers represents an annual saving of about £17,000.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, based on 10,000 miles a year, it costs 5s. per mile to run a Ministerial car, including a driver? As a Member of the House of Commons gets 6d. per mile on official journeys, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that although all Members of the House of Commons are equal, some evidently are more equal than others?

I always listen to my hon. Friend's advice on all these matters. If we should find ourselves facing a shortage of cars, perhaps my hon. Friend will lend us some of his.

Do these estimates include the increasing cost of petrol which has been incurred as a result of competition between the petroleum companies?

These are the latest figures, including all the increases which have taken place in the last six years.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider increasing the number of Ministerial cars so that those of his right hon. and hon. Friends who appear to have difficulty in arriving in time for Questions or Adjournment debates can be better accommodated?

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will extend and improve the air conditioning system in the Palace of Westminster.

At the request of the previous Services Committee, my Department will try out a system of partial air-conditioning in the Smoking Room. The work will be carried out during the Recess. If the experiment is successful, the system could be extended to other specific rooms.

Will my hon. Friend examine for the future the smaller dining rooms at the Terrace level and the Library, which is quite revolting at the end of the summer months in the late evenings? Secondly, will British or imported equipment be considered for the preliminary experiment? Will he look into the possibility of using British equipment made in the Maidstone constituency?

I am afraid that I cannot answer the last part of the question.

Why not?

I will get in touch with my hon. Friend about it. The Services Committee has decided that the Library should be air conditioned, but the trial which is being carried out is in the Member's Dining Room in the first instance, not in the Library.

Did the Parliamentary Secretary say that there was to be partial air conditioning in the smoking room? If so, what does he mean by that? It is already very draughty in the winter.

It will all be air conditioned, but perhaps it will be more thoroughly done if the Services Committee decides that the experiment is a success.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what works he proposes to carry out in the Palace of Westminster during the summer Recess in order to improve facilities for Members.

As the list of these works is rather long and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I intended to raise in a supplementary question that there are too many hon. Members who still have not got desks? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is more important that hon. Members should have desks than that they should have separate rooms, and that the sooner we can get to a situation in which every hon. Member has a desk the better?

The first point is for the Services Committee.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the time has come for a drastic overhaul of the whole of the facilities in this House? What has happened to the proposals which have constantly been made for major improvements'? Will the Government look at this matter with some urgency?

The hon. Gentleman must speak, first, to the Services Committee about that.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what proposals he has for the erection of further major buildings for use by Government departments in the North-East.

I cannot announce any proposals until the Government's current review of public expenditure is completed.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I hope that this is an indication that he will be announcing proposals for the North-East. Does the Minister agree that the South-East is desperately over-crowded and that he would be doing a service to civil servants by giving them the opportunity to work in a delightful part of the country?

We shall certainly give high priority to doing the best that we can to raise the position in the regions where employment prospects at present are most difficult.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what proposals he has to increase the employment opportunity in civil engineering in the North-East.

The prospects of an improvement in employment in civil engineering in the North-East will depend on the general progress of the economy as a whole. The Government will be paying particular attention to the circumstances of the less prosperous regions in developing their regional policies.

Does the Minister consider that he would be doing a service to the development areas if, in consultation with his right hon. Friend, Tory-controlled local authorities were encouraged to get down to more building in these areas?

I will certainly discuss the hon. Gentleman's point with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Indeed, we are already in correspondence.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many visitors there have been to the Serpentine Gallery in Kensington Gardens since its opening; and what is the average daily attendance.

About 33,000 people have visited the Gallery since it was opened; the average daily attendance has been around 450.

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the view put forward that this should be used for children's entertainment of a theatrical nature during long school holidays?

It was considered that this might be used for a children's playground. It was offered to two of the bodies concerned, but they found the staffing too difficult.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what assistance he is giving to publicity for the pretion of accidents in the construction industry.

Industrial safety, health and welfare is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, but my right hon. Friend gives assistance by promoting accident prevention in advisory leaflets, in lectures and in displays at various exhibitions.

Has my hon. Friend seen the safety signs similar to road signs which have been introduced by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers?

I cannot say that I have done so. However, we are in close touch with the National Federation of Building Trades Employers and I will take steps to do so.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the tremendous amount of work done by hon. Members on both sides on the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill in the last Parliament? Will he bring strong pressure to bear on his colleagues to have the Bill brought before the House again so that steps may be taken to try to prevent some of the severe and disastrous accidents from occurring in industry?

I will bring the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the hon. Gentleman said.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the best ways of preventing accidents in the construction industry would be to bring in a Bill immediately to abolish labour-only subcontracting?

My right hon. Friend has already made a statement about that.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he has now reviewed the number of his Department's consultative committee for the building industry; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir; but if the hon. Member will table a Question after the Recess I hope to be able to give him my considered view.

I will certainly do that. But it is a rather surprising answer when we recall that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends, when in opposition, constantly chided us that, by one stroke of the pen, they would abolish all these consultative committees. What has induced them to change their minds?

I is always wise to review these matters with great care—[Interruptionj The Labour Party certainly had a remarkable record in doing so.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will reduce the number of Departmental contracts let on a fixed-price basis, is view of the sporadic and large increases in costs within the building industry.

I am considering representations made to me by the industry on this subject.

Does the Minister agree that in a period of serious and sporadic rises any contractor on a fixed-price tender is taking a gamble which is not good for him, for his operatives, or for the client, and that urgent consideration must be given to the situation?

There are strong arguments on the industry's side which the hon. Gentleman was condensing. The hon. Gentleman must also remember that I am anxious to do nothing which will reduce demand at a time when one of the most important factors in the industry's prospects is to stimulate demand.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that his Ministry is the largest in the Government concerned with letting building contracts and that there is considerable concern about the way in which the contracting has been done in the past? Do I gather from my right hon. Friend's reply that he is making an overall review of the way in which building contracts are being let?

Yes, that is the case. I am making an overall review.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimates he has made of the effect of British Standard Time on the construction industry; and whether he will make a statement.

The Department has made a survey on behalf of the National Consultative Council of the effects of British Standard Time on the industry in the winter 1969–70. This report was communicated to the Home Office and a copy was placed in the Library of the House.

Is the Minister aware that the additional cost to young couples buying houses as a result of British Standard Time is extremely high? Does he appreciate the concern felt by the construction industry about British Standard Time and the feeling that it should be brought to end as quickly as possible?

I am aware of the feeling in the construction industry and the view that B.S.T. costs money. That feeling gets stronger the further north one goes, for obvious reasons. But the general policy on British Standard Time is a matter for the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will take this point into consideration in a general survey which he is to make.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that the effect of British Standard Time is much worse in Scotland? Will he endeavour to get rid of it as soon as he possibly can?

Yes. I realise that it is felt more in that part of the country.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will recognise the Federation of Master Builders as an official body for the purposes of negotiation.

I had a useful meeting last week with the President and the National Executive of the Federation and I look forward to having further such meetings from time to time.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I do not want to be mischievous, as I realise the delicacy of the position. However, as the Federation has 21,000, albeit small, builders, as against the 12,000 of the N.F.B.T.E., may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to pursue a policy to ensure recognition of the Federation as quickly as possible?

I have no immediate plans to vary the arrangements made by my predecessors. I, for my part, would gladly give any help that I can to bring about a merger or closer co-operation, but only if invited to do so by the parties concerned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make a distinction? I am asking him not to bring about a merger but to work towards the recognition of this body as a separate entity. The merger is for it to carry out, not us.

As I said, I have no immediate plans to vary the arrangements which were in force under the previous Government, but it is in the interests of the industry, as well as being convenient to the Government, to reduce the large number of sometimes overlapping representative bodies, and amalgamations on terms agreeable to the parties concerned would be welcome. While I shall be glad to give help, I can do so only if invited to do so by all the parties concerned.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will institute an interim agricultural price review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the substantial increase in costs to the British agricultural industry, he will consider a special autumn review of farmers prices to reimburse them for increased production costs.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will bring in a supplementary price review.

My right hon. Friends and I are aware of the difficulties facing the industry and are prepared to listen to any representations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer does not go far enough and that when this year's Agricultural Price Review award was announced the Conservative Party drew attention to the highly inflationary situation in which the industry was finding itself'? Since his Government came to office there have been considerable cost increases, both in fuel and in transport. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to sit by idly and to allow this to go on with nothing more than a promise to consider representation? What does he intend to do about it?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman voted against his party in the debate which took place just after the Price Review.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and to recall what he said when he was on this side of the House? The hon. Gentleman said that it was necessary for him to have his parliamentary salary to subsidise his agricultural activities. As I recollect, the hon. Gentleman seemed to say at that time that he had had considerable consultations with the farming community and was thoroughly convinced that a supplementary review would be necessary.

I hope that we can rely on the continued support of the hon. Gentleman.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in East Anglia especially there are a number of farmers who, because of weather conditions, are having their third bad season, and that unless some help is given in the course of this year they may not be able to go on farming? This applies especially to the smallholders.

I am aware of the problems of my right hon. and learned Friend's constituents, and I should like to do as much as I can to help, but a combination of three bad seasons and the attitude adopted by the Opposition when they were the Government was enough to reduce the industry to a very low level.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has given the vaguest possible answers? Will he be more specific? Does he recall that he and his hon. Friends called the 1970 Price Review "derisory" and "appalling"? In view of that, will he now say that he will introduce an interim Price Review, or is he prepared honestly to agree that, having been in the Department for a few days, he sees the 1970 Price Review as having been fair and reasonable?

If the Price Review were as reasonable as the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make out, why are his hon. Friends asking me for one now?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with whom he will hold discussions concerning changes in the system of financial support of agriculture.

I am considering this matter. Broadly I intend to hold discussions with representatives of the domestic interests directly concerned and with overseas suppliers.

Why did the Conservative Party announce, prior to the election, that it was proposing to remove farmers' security by altering the agricultural price support system and increasing the cost to housewives without having carried out these full-scale consultations upon which he is now apparently to embark?

The hon. Gentleman should not make irresponsible remarks about moving the guarantees in that way. It does no good to the farming community, and little credit to the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends. We need no lessons from the Opposition in putting up food prices. They increased food prices in 1969 by no less than £310 million.

As an increase in food prices is implicit in the right hon. Gentleman's policy, may I ask whether he is prepared to consult the consumer interests as a matter of urgency? Second, will he give an undertaking that in his negotiations with other countries, if he fails to negotiate the levies, he will impose them unilaterally?

No, Sir. I think that we had better see how we get on. I am giving no undertakings of any sort.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to reorganise the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board and consider their possible amalgamation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for the future financing of the White Fish Authority.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy in regard to an increase in the powers of the White Fish Authority.

I have not yet had an opportunity to meet the Chairman of the Authority or to discuss issues such as these with the industry. Both steps should, I think, precede any proposals which could involve legislation.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the recommendation of the Select Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries and consider setting up a committee to look into the whole problem of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board?

I shall always give consideration to Select Committee Reports, but I do not wish to get involved in setting up a committee to look at an authority.

I am glad to see a Member for a fishing port at the Dispatch Box. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that when he was on these benches he consistently and persistently attacked the White Fish Authority which he wished to see abolished? Why can he not be consistent and come clean about the whole matter?

I have not forgotten. I doubted whether the needs of the industry were best served in the present form of organisation, but the House would not expect me to have had proper consultations in the month that we have been in office. When I have, I shall bring forward legislative proposals.

Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's comments, may I ask when he is likely to come to the House with a considered opinion on this problem? Is he aware that many hon. Members want to see the White Fish Authority considerably strengthened, for example, by giving it control of training within the industry?

Our style of Government is to consider everything carefully.

We appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman must have time to look at this, but will he bear in mind that there is a strong case for amalgamating these authorities, and that many fishermen in the North of Scotland are confused about where they should make applications for grant? As the building of bigger ships is becoming more and more necessary, the case for amalgamation is very strong indeed.

I shall look at what the right hon. Gentleman said.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will have early talks with the National Farmers' Unions about further improving the competitive position of British horticulture.

My right hon. Friend will shortly be having a general discussion about horticulture with the Chairman of the Central Horticultural Committee and other representatives of the National Farmers' Union.

Can my hon. Friend give us an assurance that British horticultural interests will be safeguarded while the European Common Market negotiations proceed?

That is a slightly wider question, but the answer must, in the long run, lie in seeing that the industry is strong enough to meet its competitors with confidence, and the various grants for improvements which have been made towards efficiency are going in the direction to make it so.

How long is the long run about which the hon. Gentleman spoke?

That is a matter for negotiation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for improving the profitability of hill farming.

We are making an urgent study of the position of the livestock industry generally, including livestock rearing, as part of our assessment of agricultural policies.

Will my hon. Friend assure us that the present Government regard the hill-farming industry as an important part of British agriculture and will keep its importance in mind during both the Price Review and the Common Market negotiations?

Yes, Sir. As regards the Common Market negotiations, this is one of the matters which has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend as being of fundamental importance. I accept what my hon. Friend said. Farming in the hills and uplands is closely and essentially linked with that of the low ground from which prosperity must come.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that hill farming is often unprofitable and that in many cases afforestation would not only be more profitable, but would bring more employment to rural areas?

I would not in the least dispute that the policies of the previous Government have affected the hill areas even more gravely than those on the low ground.

Does the Minister expect, in the Government's new policy, to get the bulk of the hill-land income from the results of a levy or from direct grants as at present?

We have made it absolutely clear throughout that there will be no alteration generally in production grants.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to allowing replacement heifers which are in calf at the June census to qualify for the hill-cow subsidy.

This matter is being considered by the Hill Farming Advisory Committee.

Does the hon. Member not consider that the qualifying conditions have been somewhat rigid in the past? Will he discuss them with the N.F.U. and other representative bodies?

There has certainly been a tendency for autumn calving to become more popular. There are reasons of good husbandry for this, although not all hill farms are entirely suitable for it. We shall certainly consider this point urgently.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he proposes to use the machinery of the National Board for Prices and Incomes for the examination of price increases for foodstuffs; and if he will make a statement;

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he proposes to continue to operate the early warning system for price increases in manufacturing foodstuffs; and if he will make a statement;

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions he has intervened to stop increases in the retail prices of food.

I cannot at present add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 7th July, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity proposes to make a statement before the Recess on the Government's general policy on these matters.—[Vol. 803, c. 25.]

Is the Minister aware that even my hon. Friend did not regard that as a reply? Can he be more specific and definitive? [Interruption.] I have two Questions down, and I should be allowed two supplementaries. Is the Minister aware that many people want the Conservative Party to honour its pledge and not virtually to ignore unjustified price increases, so that they have no scrutiny at all?

The hon. Member had better wait for my right hon. Friend's statement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that the early warning system was entered into with the voluntary agreement of the food manufacturers and therefore will he think before he drops the idea?

Yes, but from what I gather from the food manufacturers they did not think much of it.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that many hon. Members on this side of the House would like to see the National Board for Prices and Incomes done away with and do not want any action from him to sustain it? If the early warning system, as operated by his Department, were done away with, would it mean a considerable reduction in expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture?

We must await the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State later in the week. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is, "Yes; to do away with the early warning system would result in an economy."

In view of the current practices during the dock strike in relation to apples and oranges, for example, which the right hon. Gentleman himself has deplored, does he still believe that it would be best for the country, and particularly for the housewife, to continue with competition and the market forces that he has advocated?

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister's hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Home Office conducting the Government in the same style as himself, because he committed him yesterday to power to control prices at the retail point in the present strike? Does the Minister agree, and, if so, how can he do it when the wholesalers are increasing their prices?

The Government would use the powers available to them if they had to. The House had ample opportunity to discuss this matter yesterday.

Is the Minister aware that many housewives believe that his advice to shop around and look for alternatives is a complete abdication of his authority, and that he has caved in to the threats of the racketeers and is not worthy to hold the office that he now holds as long as those racketeers can say the sort of thing that they have been saying to a Minister of the Crown? Is he also aware that advertisements are appearing in the newspaper in respect of goods which are being hoarded, in order to blackmail housewives, and that the Minister is doing nothing about it?

Let me make the position absolutely clear. If the dockers go back to work the prices will come down.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the French Prime Minister to visit him.

I have no plans to do so at present, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us would very much like to see the French Prime Minister here and to hear his views on political federalism? Will my right hon. Friend say whether, in the event of the other members of an enlarged Community assenting to federalism, the British Government are likely to do so as well?

That is such a hypothetical question that I would not venture to answer it.

Does the Prime Minister hold to the view expressed in his Godkin Lecture on nuclear sharing with France? Was this discussed last week in Paris by the Foreign Secretary with M. Schumann and, if so, can we have a statement about that meeting at the earliest moment?

There are two Questions to me later on the Order Paper about that.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to visit Zambia and other African members of the Commonwealth.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to make an official visit to Australia.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to the Persian Gulf.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to Zambia and Tanzania at his early convenience.

Apart from attending the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting in Singapore in January, I have no firm plans for overseas visits at present.

Does not the Prime Minister recognise that if the Government continue to pursue their plan for supplying arms to South Africa the Commonwealth is in danger of disintegration? Some of these Prime Ministers might not even attend the conference in Singapore. Will he therefore seek, before the Commonwealth conference, to invite those African leaders to this country, to discuss this whole problem with them?

I have been in consultation with the Commonwealth leaders. I have had no complaint about the method of consultation, but if they wish to adopt other methods I am quite prepared to consider them.

Can the Prime Minister comment on the attitude of the Australian Government to the question of arms for South Africa?

That is a matter for the Australian Government itself to make public. The discussions which we had are obviously confidential.

Referring to the suggested visit of the Prime Minister to the Persian Gulf, is he aware that few things make Conservative Governments appear more ridiculous than their constant hankering after a rôle in this area—an area in which we have little part to play, which has proved ruinously expensive in the past and in which we are not wanted at the present time?

I cannot agree with that view, and it was not the view held by the hon. Gentleman's Administration, until they quit to do a deal over Health Service charges.

In view of the Foreign Secretary's ignominious and inept display at the Dispatch Box yesterday, and following the speech of Dr. Milton Obote in Kampala, is it not imperative that the Prime Minister should visit East Africa to see the distinguished Heads of State of Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia in order to clear up some of these misunderstandings?

As I have said, I have had consultations with them by different means during this period. They all understand that consultations are continuing.

Since the Prime Minister refused my suggestion a few days ago that he should publish the letter which was sent to the Commonwealth, and since that letter is now appearing in newspapers in different parts of the world, including New York, will he agree to print it as a White Paper before tomorrow's debate, so that we can see exactly how what he said to the Commonwealth reconciles with or fails to reconcile with the statement made yesterday that no decision has been taken?

No, Sir, because it is impossible to carry on any consultations with Heads of Government in Commonwealth countries if, at a later date, one is to publish the correspondence. I do not accept that newspapers have published the exchange which I have had with Commonwealth Governments, but if parts of an exchange do reach the Press through some means or other, there is no justification in my view for the British Prime Minister then publishing what has always been stated and accepted to be confidential consultation.

Yes, Sir, but since this is available to be read by people in New York, should it not be available to be read by hon. Members of this House before the debate? Will the right hon. Gentleman deny the statement which has been published, which purports to be his letter, which says that, against that background, we have decided that we should essentially, in relation to the demand for our own defence interests, return in part to our former policy for the supply of arms? If the right hon. Gentleman said that, how does he reconcile that with the statement repeatedly made in the House yesterday that no decision has been taken?

I reiterate that every Administration, including the right hon. Gentleman's own, has always adhered to the decision that, if consultations are to be confidential between Heads of Government, they should not be published. I propose to adhere to that.

asked the Prime Minister what changes he has made in the regulations governing the conduct of Ministers.

None, Sir.

Does that mean, then, that the regulations differ from those of the previous Conservative Administration?

I shall have to go back and check carefully the differences which have emerged over the last half-century in advice of this kind which is given to Ministers. What I am saying is that there is no difference between the advice in this document and that of the previous Administration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman refresh his mind by reference to his own previous experience in a Ministerial capacity?

These are obviously confidential instructions which are issued to Ministers. It is not possible for me, on the spur of the moment, to give any detailed comparisons with what was issued before. However, it is well known that, since this procedure was started, roughly half-a-century ago, there have been developments from time to time. On this occasion I have not found it necessary to change anything.

Does the Prime Minister's reply about the consistency of his party on this matter mean, particularly in view of the reply which he gave to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that, in the future as in the past with a Conservative Administration, whatever is to be leaked to the Press is not to be divulged to the House of Commons?

That matter does not arise, because the procedures followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when in power in leaking things to the Press were not covered by instructions to Ministers.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for discussing future co-ordination of British and French nuclear defences with the President of France.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for discussing future co-ordination of British and French nuclear defences with the President of France.

None, Sir.

Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to agree with the proposition that if one day Western Europe is to be endowed with a nuclear capacity which is not ultimately dependent on the willingness of the United States to commit suicide on our behalf, such a capacity must be built on a basis of Anglo-French co-operation, possibly, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, "complementary to N.A.T.O."?

If one is dealing with the precise situation which my hon. Friend is outlining, then, of course, because of the non-proliferation treaty, what he says is correct.

From an exactly opposite point of view, would not disclosure of British nuclear secrets to France breach the non-proliferation pact? Might they not also pass via France to West Germany, which would end our hopes of an East-West détente in Europe?

The second part of that question is a matter for the French Government to state, and my experience has always been that they are absolutely dogmatic that none of their nuclear information is passed to the West German Government. So far as we are concerned, then, it was also publicly stated at the time of the non-proliferation treaty that for Powers which are already nuclear to exchange information in the way that the United States Administration, for example, and we ourselves do, is not in breach of the treaty.

Can we at least have Anglo-French co-ordinated targetting in addition to national targetting and N.A.T.O. targetting? Would that not be a good start?

That is one particular aspect of a possible development of this kind. As I said in my main Answer to these two Questions, I have no plans for discussing this with the French Government at the moment.

But since the Prime Minister has reaffirmed, in something pubblished since the General Election, his view that there should be Anglo-French co-operation in the nuclear field, can he say why the Foreign Secretary yesterday suggested that he is waiting for a French proposal to this effect? Second, will he completely disavow the statement yesterday by the Foreign Secretary that there might be co-operation between Britain and France in this field outside N.A.T.O. but parallel with N.A.T.O.?

I put forward this proposal, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, as long ago as the spring of 1965 in a lecture at Oxford, and I have developed it since then, as he pointed out, as recently as in the Godkin Lecture, which was published, in this country at any rate, this month. This is a matter of long-term possibility. When I first made the proposal, the French were members of N.A.T.O. and when I repeated it, I hoped that it would be a means of bringing them back into N.A.T.O. There is obviously a difference of view about this between leaders in France and leaders in this country.

The right hon. Gentleman reaffirmed, did he not, last week—since the General Election and with France out of N.A.T.O.—that that was still part of the Government's policy? Can he explain precisely what he means by it? Will he reject, as I asked him to do in my earlier supplementary question, the suggestion of the Foreign Secretary yesterday that there might be Anglo-French nuclear co-operation in the military field outside N.A.T.O. but parallel to it?

"Complementary" to it. There are already arrangements between the French Government and N.A.T.O. on forces, as the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well—

Not nuclear.

Not in a nuclear field, no, I agree, but in other fields, as the right hon. Gentleman knows from his former experience. I see no reason why the Government should inhibit themselves by saying that they cannot discuss with the French Government any question of future arrangements, whether inside or outside N.A.T.O., but my hope remains that they could be done within N.A.T.O.

The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said that the credibility of our nuclear defence depended on American willingness to commit suicide on our behalf. Would not the credibility of an Anglo-French nuclear capacity depend upon our willingness to commit suicide on our own behalf?

The hon. and learned Gentleman must be responsible for his own analysis of that situation.

I think that the House will recognise that this is a matter of the gravest concern, not only to the British people but to the whole of our alliance. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that, before making any proposals for co-operation with France separate from the existing N.A.T.O. machinery, he will first discuss those proposals with our loyal N.A.T.O. allies in the Nuclear Planning Group of N.A.T.O.?