asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on employment prospects for Northern Ireland in the light of recently announced industrial development.

Recently announced industrial development projects, coupled with the more favourable employment trends throughout the United Kingdom, permit optimism about future employment prospects in Northern Ireland.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Although there is another Question later on the Order Paper, will he comment on the present employment situation in the shipbuilding industry in Northern Ireland? Will he give an assurance that individuals in that industry are not relying unduly on a legalistic formulation of employment contractual obligations?

As the hon. Gentleman said, another hon. Member has tabled a Question on precisely this point. I should be very discourteous to the hon. Member concerned if I were to deal with that point in answer to this question.

Reverting to my hon. Friend's original answer, does not my hon. Friend realise that there is a need throughout my constituency for new industries to match the potential growth of population over the next decade, in an area estimated to be the fastest growing area in the Province? Will he ensure that North Down is not overlooked under the advance factory programme?

I naturally join with my hon. Friend in his tribute to the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation, whose work for the whole of Northern Ireland is recognised on both sides of the House.

Will the Minister make a statement about the position in Antrim where, eight weeks ago, a new Supermatic factory was opened and now, after having the Governor open it and after a great blowing of trumpets, the total adult male labour force have been given their cards and the raw materials supplied to the factory have been lifted by the contractors? It seems that the whole project is about to fall through.

I would rather not comment in too great detail at this stage. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that the Ministry of Commerce is very closely in touch with the situation.

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

The general level of violence is declining.

I welcome the attitude in Dublin to the problems of law and order and the constructive speeches made in Dail Eireann recently about the North, but does not my right hon. Friend think that despite the improvement the situation on the border is serious? Are we getting nearer to joint security control of the border? Would it not be a welcome gesture of good will if we had full reciprocity in extradition, North and South?

On my hon. Friend's first point, he will have noted the considerable operation mounted by the security forces in the Republic last weekend in the Dundalk area, following the tragic loss of three soldiers as a result of mine explosions. This operation was most helpful. One looks forward to cooperation of this sort in the future. I am grateful for it.

Does the Secretary of State accept that I, too, welcome any attempts made to reduce tension in the Six Counties? Does not he agree that the case recently exposed by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in which a young fellow was being blackmailed by the security forces—a charge which was admitted by the Secretary of State for Defence—does not help the situation? Furthermore, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House is entitled to an explanation and a statement about that case?

I believe that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has spoken to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) about this case. I confine myself to the general point that, bearing in mind all the problems that exist in a situation like Northern Ireland, mistakes are made from time to time on both sides. I, for one, have never been prepared to deny that. Nevertheless, the performance of our security forces is something of which the House can be properly proud.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether there has been any change in the political directives given to the Army? Will he confirm that there have not, in view of certain rumours? Has he anything fresh to say about cooperation between the Army and the police?

There has been no change in the directives to the Army. The best evidence of that is that one is accused, on the one hand, of having given directives for greater action of some sort and, on the other, of having directed restricted action. The best answer is clearly that there has been no change, nor should there be. It is the job of the Army on the one hand, to do everything possible to end violence and to keep up the most constant pressure on the terrorist. The other duty, which it understands full well, is not in any way to do wrong to innocent members of the population.

We all agree that the Army should withdraw from the policing rôle in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. What prerequisite does the Secretary of State have in mind before this can be done?

There must be no doubt in the first instance that co-operation on the part of the whole population with the security forces is a vital feature in the security of any State. Co-operation from the population in Northern Ireland, as evidenced by use of the robot telephone, confidential systems and the rest, has been increasing all the time, is still increasing, and is a major factor in the improving successes of the security forces. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, North (Captain Orr) also asked about co-operation between the Army and the police. This co-operation is certainly a major and important factor in the security operation and in the immense successes there have been in bringing people to trial for various offences.

Will my right hon. Friend make a statement about the member of the UDR just reported shot and killed?

It is always a great mistake in this House to make a statement about an incident until one has received a full and detailed report. I can say only that I regret to understand, from a very preliminary report, that a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment was shot off duty at a farm close to the border this morning. It would be wrong for me to go into further details.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of persons charged. Will he assist the House and particularly the Northern Ireland Committee to obtain statistics of convictions and acquittals regularly? I regret to say this; in the light of the discussions we have had—but may we have the statistics distinguished in terms of the religious belief of the defendant?

I would be trespassing far beyond what I would wish to say in answer to the original Question if I went into the subject of the discussions which have been continuing, in my absence, in the Committee on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. One of the most important provisions is bringing to trial and bringing forward charges against those whom one believes to be guilty of terrorist offences. That is the first task. The second is to ensure that those persons receive a proper and fair trial. That is encumbent upon any State. Equally, this House must understand the dangers of intimidation of juries from whatever source it may come.

Will my right hon. Friend give some information about the automatic fire that was directed against the workers of the Sirocco works in Belfast when they left the factory a few days ago and came out into Mount Pottinger Road? Is he aware that the fire was directed from a children's play tower in Seaforde Street, and will he say what action the Army is taking in the matter?

I accept that this is an important matter. My hon. Friend the Minister of State had a meeting with all the people concerned. The Army is taking appropriate action, and it would be wrong for me to go further. However, I recognise the importance of this case.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many political parties are at present seeking to obtain seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

This information will not be available until after the close of nominations on or about 5th June.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether the Secretary of State has finished his discussions and his contemplations and has come to a decision whether or not the banning of Sinn Fein from standing in the elections will be lifted?

My right hon. Friend has not reached a final decision. He has said that he will listen to all considerations. As for the hon. Member's phrase "the banning of Sinn Fein", of course, there is nothing under electoral law, as has been made clear, to stop Sinn Fein from standing.

Will the Minister confirm that under electoral law members of the Provisional IRA can stand, under the same reasoning. Is he aware that the statement from the Church of Ireland Synod in Dublin that people from the Provisional IRA should be able to stand in the elections is resented by people in Northern Ireland?

Under the electoral law system the practice of standing for elections gives people who are wanted on criminal charges no immunity whatsoever, whatever party they stand for. The position is, as has been said before, that anyone may stand, but men of violence and criminals who are wanted by the police and sought by the courts are given no immunity by reason of standing.

When the figures are presented will the Unionists be counted as one party or more than one party?

That is not a matter for me to decide. The parties will put their candidates forward under their appropriate labels. It is for them to choose.

We agree that men of proven violence should be dealt with by the law. However, there is very strong feeling across the political boundaries that a way must be found for Sinn Fein to stand in the elections, or it will be able to play a major political part in arguing that it was not allowed to stand and that the elections were unfair. We must use 28th June to get a political view in Northern Ireland.

The strong feelings on this issue are recognised and my right hon. Friend has said that he will consider all aspects before reaching a decision. But in the present situation the fact must be faced that the Republican clubs are allowed to put forward candidates. Those who hold Republican views can stand and must choose the label of the party for which they wish to stand. It must be realised, as stated in the White Paper, that it cannot be right to accept that people can stand who at one moment decide to play politics and at the next will use means of violence. That kind of candidacy cannot be tolerated. All these factors have to be considered in these circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements are being made to ensure that polling agents at the Northern Ireland local government and Assembly elections are not confused with the polling staff.

Presiding officers will be instructed that polling agents are to be seated so that they are not confused with polling staff, and do not communicate with voters. Polling staff and counting staff will wear identifying badges.

Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State aware that that arose only as a result of the informal, friendly and—in the view of most of us—quite proper arrangements which occurred during the border poll—arrangements which, however, could be misconstrued in the course of polling on a political election?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. During the passage of the Bill dealing with the elections, considerable anxiety was expressed in the House. I discussed this matter with the chief electoral officer and decided that it must be made clear beyond doubt that it was being conducted properly. I believe that this arrangement will provide for that. I am certain that the parties concerned will recognise the Tightness of this and wish to see it this way.

As one of those who expressed concern about this matter, may I say how happy I am about the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has made? May I take it a stage further? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that in any rooms and schools which are used as polling stations no symbol which may be associated with any political party or philosophy will be on display?

I must be careful about my powers in relation to these matters, but I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point and make representations to those concerned.

Reverting to the subject matter of the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say whether anything was done to infringe the electoral law in the course of the border poll?

I have no evidence of that. I do not think so. But doubts were expressed, and the point was made, in this House, that there may or could have been. I have taken the view that all parties in Northern Ireland and everyone taking part in the election would wish to ensure that it was conducted on a fair and proper basis as well as being seen to be so by everyone.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will extend the time for polling in the forthcoming election to the Northern Ireland Assembly and ensure that the electors are provided with the same number of polling places which they had in the last parliamentary election in Northern Ireland.

Following representations, my right hon. Friend has decided, in consultation with the chief electoral officer, that polling hours will be from 8 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. I understand that the chief electoral officer intends to provide about 500 polling places.

I welcome that reply, which goes some way towards meeting the plea that I made during our debate on the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill, but does my hon. Friend agree that it would be much better to allow people to vote during the hours of daylight, which, I believe, at the moment extend to 9.30? Does my hon. Friend realise that people in country areas, in North Down and other parts of the Province, have great difficulty in travelling to polling stations far beyond the area where they have voted in previous elections? Will he try to provide as many polling stations as possible?

My hon. Friend overlooks two important considerations. The first is the security of a very large number of polling stations—more, and rightly more, than were used in the border poll. The second consideration is most important, namely, the unrestricted availability of postal voting facilities. This distinguishes the situation considerably from what would be the case on this side of the water.

I recognise the serious security considerations involved, but does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in general, it would be unfortunate if polling hours in Northern Ireland differed from those in Great Britain? I wonder, for example, whether terminating the hours on the half hour rather than on the full hour will be readily understood by voters. Might not that lead to confusion? Will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter?

No, Sir. This decision has been taken after careful consultation with the many interests involved. It is unfortunate that there should be different hours in different parts of the United Kingdom. It is also very unfortunate that the general background and conditions against which this election will be held are also different.

Will the Minister say when applications for postal votes for the Assembly elections must be in?

The closure date for applications for postal voting is on or before 17th May, for local government elections. If granted, those applications are also applicable to the Assembly elections. The date for everyone to bear in mind is 17th May. An extensive campaign is being conducted to make this widely known in Northern Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the position in the Belfast shipyard.

The dispute in Harland and Wolff's yard is about a bonus scheme for steelworkers entered into in September 1971. The steelworkers, dissatisfied with the operation of the scheme, embarked some three months ago on a programme of non-co-operation. The steelworkers have been discharged, after due notice, but the company is anxious to avoid, or postpone as long as possible, laying off other workers.

Does not the Minister of State agree that the management has an obligation in this case to keep the promise that it made to the steelworkers? Does not he agree also that for the managing director of the yard to appear on local television, as he did last night, and to say that the Secretary of State is in full agreement with him is not likely to lead to conciliation? Will the Minister confirm whether the Secretary of State agrees with the management in this dispute? Will he also tell us about the position of 600 dilutee workers who are not part of the strike but who have been dismissed as a result of it? They have been refused unemployment benefit. When they wanted to find other employment they were also refused their cards and money due to them for holiday pay. Will the Minister also say when the first test case before the tribunal for the payment of social benefits to those workers will be heard so that they and their families may be justly treated?

In a dispute of this kind there are strong feelings on each side about the nature of views held by the other side. We are in a situation in which the union—the executive of the Boilermakers' Society—is in agreement with the management about the proper way to reach a settlement. If that proper way can be followed a settlement can be reached. That must be the position.

Will the Minister of State assure the House that the two sides, or either of them, are not adopting an unduly legalistic view of their rights in this case? May we have an indication how the Department of Employment is having an oversight of the dispute, which is likely to be extremely damaging to the propect of this very important shipyard?

As I said earlier, either side tends to get a somewhat oversharp view of the position held by the other. That is inevitable. However, the industrial relations division of the Department of Health and Social Security—not the Department of Employment—is watching the situation closely. The normal conciliation services are available. The position remains that both the management and the union—the executive of the Boilermakers Society—are in agreement about the proper basis for a settlement. If that path is followed a settlement can be achieved.

Is the Minister of State aware of the great tragedy that would befall Northern Ireland if there were any loss of production or a complete close down of Harland and Wolff? Is he aware, further, of the considerable competition which the yard faces from other yards in Europe and, especially, in Japan? Until recently the yard had a fine reputation for high productivity. In view of that, will the Minister do all he can to see that there is a reconciliation and a sensible settlement to the dispute, so that the future prospects of the yard will not be damaged?

I am acutely aware of the sad blot that this incident places on the excellent industrial relations record in Northern Ireland. I undertake that everything possible will be done to encourage ways in which the dispute can be brought to a sensible conclusion.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the foods and the quantity thereof at present stockpiled in the EEC.

I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I shall look with interest at the figures when they are published. Is the right hon. Gentleman fully aware that the British housewife is already completely disillusioned by the effect of the Community's agricultural policy on her and her family? Is he aware that prices go up month by month, that the housewife is able to buy less, and yet the stockpiling continues month by month? In view of today's announcement in one of the London papers about the £50 million food scandal in Europe, how much longer will British taxpayers be forced to contribute to this policy? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the responsibility for change rests not with the housewife but solely with the Minister?

If there is any disillusionment it will be with the words that the hon. Gentleman has used. His words show his total misunderstanding of the situation regarding the Community. In fact, food prices have not risen as a result of our entering Europe. As I explained in the House last week, the actions and decisions which we took in Luxembourg have safeguarded the British housewife this year. As I told the House last week, the best estimate which we can make about the effect on the housewife, this year, of our entry into the EEC is 1½ per cent. The increases that have occurred, of which we are very conscious and which I know disturb the housewife very much, are not the result of Britain's joining the Community.

Should not my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a marginal surplus of foods to take account of increasing demand? Is it not the case that the review of the agricultural policy, which he has announced, will be aimed at reducing surpluses in certain commodities whilst encouraging the production of those that are in short supply?

Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the dangers that exist from having a shortage of a particular commodity. We have seen the effects of that on beef, over the last 12 months. It is far better to have a slight surplus than a shortage, which immediately hits the housewife very hard.

I return to the right hon. Gentleman's answer about the stocks of food which now exist in Europe. We have not seen the table, but I have a feeling that the stock figures will not tell us the quantities of certain grains that have been denatured rather than put into stock or destroyed. In view of the reports that we have had of very serious food shortages in certain countries in Asia, or parts of countries in Asia, will the right hon. Gentleman raise with the EEC, this year, the possibility of not denaturing or destroying certain grains that might be used for human consumption this year? Will he urge the EEC to consider some other and much more acceptable way of disposing of them?

I have sympathy with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about helping the under-nourished countries. The Community has a good record for helping them. I must take up with the right hon. Gentleman the point that he used about "destroying". There seems to be a genuine misunderstanding about what happens. There is no question of destroying the food. Denaturing is not destroying. Anybody who pretends that it is destroying is grossly misleading the House and the country. I would have hoped that Opposition hon. Members, whatever their prejudices, would at least be honest about that. Denaturing does not destroy food; it produces food in such a form that enables it to be used for animal feed. If hon. Members call that destroying they are showing an incredible ignorance.

Surely the point is that it is not animals but human beings in Asia and parts of India and Bangladesh who are now short of food.

I agreed with the hon. Gentleman about that, but I took up the use of the phrase about destroying food. It is important to use words that mean what they say. In this regard it is not destruction but diverting to animal feed. Cereals, and wheat in particular, have been used for animal feed for many years. It does not matter which Government are in power, animals still eat wheat in this country.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he has been saying from time to time that the British consumer would be protected, that we would not have ill-effects from the common agricultural policy, and that in due course Common Market farmers would be getting to grips with agricultural prices? None of those things has happened, yet he goes on putting out bromides one after another. When will the Government do something to ensure that the housewife is protected from the results of the common agricultural policy? How can he say that the price increases which the housewife has had to meet—in products such as meat, eggs, butter and cheese—are not the result of the common agricultural policy?

None of the things which the hon. Lady attributes to me have I ever said.

You have.

What I have repeatedly said—if the hon. Lady will control herself—is that the increases in price which we have suffered during the last six months have not been related to joining the Community. I have also said that there will be rises in price resulting from joining the Community, but that they will be limited and spread over a long time. The price increases of the various commodities to which she referred are not the effect of Common Market entry. If the Government which the hon. Lady supported when they were in office had encourage a little more production in this country we would not have had the problem which has faced housewives over the last six months.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in food prices during stage 1 of the Government's anti-inflation policy.

Between 14th November 1972 and 20th March 1973, the latest date for which information is available, the food index rose by 7·3 per cent., but the sub-group of the index measuring the movement of prices of food items mainly manufactured in the United Kingdom rose by only 1·4 per cent. during the same period.

In view of that answer, which indicates that food prices increased by nearly 8 per cent. during phase 1 of the Government's incomes policy, I congratulate the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend on their outstanding courage in coming to the House today at all. In view of the campaign presently being waged by the Conservative Party to convince the housewife that the only reason she cannot pay the prices in the shops is that her husband does not give her a sufficient proportion of his wage increase, how much of his wage increase during phase 1 would he have had to give her to meet that 8 per cent. increase?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has not missed the fact that her husband's wage increase, up to the period of the freeze, measured 35·4 per cent., which left him a good deal of room in which to contribute to his wife's household expenditure.

What further steps is my hon. Friend's Department taking to improve the production of food at home? That is the finest way in which her Department can combat the inflationary spiral. If we can achieve greater home production of food, her Department will be tackling the problem root and branch.

My right hon. Friend has already referred to the marked increase in beef production. There has also been an increase in other production. My hon. Friend will know that we have just been over the highest seasonal peak period of prices.

If all these rises in food prices have nothing whatever to do with Government policy, why did the Minister make a speech to farmers at Kettering last weekend saying that the Government were engaged in raising food prices to EEC levels?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have always said that our commitment on joining the EEC would involve us in increases of an average of 2p per pound over the six-year transitional period—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) must learn to understand what proportion of food price increases is related to world market increases and what proportion is consequent on our joining the EEC.

In the context of increased food prices, does my hon. Friend agree that agricultural workers in my constituency in Dorset and elsewhere are still drawing a wage little more than half the wage drawn in urban centres? Does she know whether the policy of the Labour Party is that the wages of agricultural workers should be screwed down to the lowest level possible, or whether the Labour Party takes the more humane view that agricultural wages should find their own socially acceptable level and that civilised people will bear the consequences?

I trust that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches will have noted that question. In a recent debate the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said when the Labour Government came to office agricultural wages were very low and when they left they were still low.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the annual percentage rate of increase in the food price index from November 1972 to the latest date for which figures are available.

As short-term movements in the index are significantly affected by seasonal factors, it would be inappropriate to make this calculation.

If it is inappropriate for the Minister to do it, let me do it. The increase was more than 12 per cent. in the six months from November to the end of April. That means an annual increase of 24 per cent. Which does the Minister think will come first, in old money terms, the one-bob egg or the three-bob loaf? Last week I paid over a bob for one banana.

The hon. Gentleman would have found it extremely embarrassing if the seasonal factor increase during the last two winters when the Labour Government were in power had been extrapolated over the full year.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that since the Labour Government went out of office earnings and pensions have risen at a higher rate than has the cost of living, leaving people materially better off?

Yes, there can be absolutely no doubt that there has been an increase in the real standard of living of the people of this country.

Will the hon. Lady accept that that is not true of the period of the freeze? There has been a dramatic fall in the standard of living since the beginning of the freeze in November. Does she agree that she is, regretfully, beginning to join in the conspiracy of Ministers to conceal the real facts? Are we not running at an annual rate of increase of between 24 per cent. and 25 per cent.? Does she also agree that that is not due to seasonal factors, because during the freeze prices have been increasing at nine times the rate at which they increased during the same six months last year? Will the Government resign if they cannot do something about it?

Those are not correct figures. As I explained to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), the seasonal increases which occurred during the last two winters in which the Labour Government were in power, if extrapolated over 12 months, would have shown a ridiculous increase in prices.

Is my hon. Friend aware that since 1970 spending on food has risen by 16·5 per cent., on alcohol by 27 per cent., on gambling by 28 per cent., on the purchase of electrical goods —[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]

Order.

—on the purchase of electrical goods—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member must be allowed to ask his question— comparatively briefly, I hope.

—on the purchase of electrical goods by 44 per cent. and on the purchase of cars and motor cycles by 81 per cent.?

I know that all those figures are absolutely accurate. We should remember that expenditure on food represents less than one-quarter of an average family's income, although I am well aware that it represents a high proportion of the average housewife's income, which is a different thing.

asked the Prime Minister if he will visit at least one of the seven crofting counties during his official visit to Scotland.

I visited Ross and Cromarty and Inverness last September, but I have no plans to make further visits to the crofting counties at present.

Are we correct in understanding that during his visit to Scotland the Prime Minister is likely to make a speech about devolution? Instead of making speeches, will he take action on decentralisation and set up a petroleum supply industry board in Scotland? In view of the complacency expressed in the Scottish Economic Bulletin, will the Prime Minister take steps to ensure that the planning mechanism in Scotland is sufficiently stringent to secure that land, particularly in the crofting counties, is used for its proper purposes and not exploited for private gain on oil developments?

There is absolutely no complacency in the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is an admirable production, which gives the most up-to-date information about the rapid development of oil and associated products in Scotland. I say, again, that that is something of which hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies can indeed be proud.

Why does not the Prime Minister bring that splendid new yacht of his to Shetland? He would be able to sail in waters that sort out the men from the boys, hear our problems, and visit the oil rigs by sea.

I am always prepared to do what the right hon. Gentleman asks. I have had many invitations to sail in Scotland but it has never been possible for me to afford the time to do so. I have visited rigs. It is easier to do so by helicopter.

Why does the Prime Minister—unlike his predecessor—not visit and, apparently, have no intention of visiting Caithness and Sutherland? He would be given an extremely warm welcome and would be able to see the potential for industrial and other development in that most progressive part of the crofting counties. If he came by way of the A9 he would be able to understand some of our communications difficulties and make representations to his right hon. Friend about the importance of bridging the Dornoch Firth.

On two occasions when I was Leader of the Opposition, before I became Prime Minister, I visited Caithness and Sutherland. I am well acquainted with the A9 and its problems. That is one reason why I have always supported the improvement of road communications in Scotland.

asked the Prime Minister what request for an official meeting he has received from the leader of the Greater London Council.

None, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the newly-elected Labour GLC inherited far more than traffic jams? It also inherited the land and housing scandals that abound throughout London. Decent, honest, hard-working people are being hounded out of their homes by the activities of spiv property developers, who have been aided and abetted by this Government's deplorable housing policies. What financial help will the Prime Minister offer to the GLC or the London boroughs to enable them to put compulsory purchase orders on the 100,000 empty properties in London so that they can be made available for Londoners to live in? Will he help or hinder London in this object?

I thoroughly reject the hon. Gentleman's accusations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wholly inappropriate for the Labour-controlled GLC to push forward with its absurd idea for free or artificially very cheap public transport in London, the cost of which the ratepayers would have to bear rather than the many millions of visitors to London?

This is a matter for the GLC, as transport authority, to decide. I should think that everybody realises that there is no such thing as free transport.

The right hon. Gentleman has got it.

Somebody has to pay for it. In this case the GLC's ratepayers would pay for it.

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the continued exodus of industry from London is having a serious effect in terms of the increased unemployment of trained men who have served apprenticeships and are having to do work which they find humiliating, and a serious social effect throughout London as a whole? Only this week another large firm in my constituency closed. Will the right hon. Gentleman urge the two Ministers responsible to treat London with special consideration because of the movement of industrial organisations?

I know that change of this kind produces particular problems for parts of London where the occurrences take place. After all, I am a London Member of Parliament. But I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's generalisation at the beginning of his question. The plain fact is that unemployment in London has fallen considerably. Indeed, some firms are now finding difficulty in getting skilled and specialised manpower.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister, in answer to a supplementary question on Question No. Q3, said that he paid for his transport. I wonder whether, in the interests of accuracy, the Prime Minister could be invited to correct that answer.

The content of an answer is not a matter for the Chair.

Further to that point of order. Since I have been challenged, perhaps I may say that what I said quite clearly—it will be in the memory of the House—is that when I use it for private purposes I pay for it.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the Primrose League on 11th April on future environmental planning represents Government policy.

Yes, Sir.

In that speech the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry referred to Disraeli's Artisans and Labourers Dwellings Act, which was the first attempt by Disraeli to eliminate slums in this country. Does my right hon. Friend realise that when he, as Prime Minister, comes to mark the centenary of Disraeli's death in 1981, there will be hardly any slums left in this country, because of the Housing Finance Act, which is so much maligned by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Yes, Sir. That is the objective of the Government's policy, and it is the positive side of the Housing Finance Act.

Concerning environmental planning, does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he could not give me an undertaking that any major Bill would be accompanied by a White Paper? Is he aware that Members of the Committee on the Maplin Development Bill are in great difficulties because they cannot talk about the Government's intentions for planning in south-east Essex? Will he now ensure that some sort of publication on those lines is made available to the House and the general public?

I am always prepared to consider this matter, but I could not give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that this would happen in every case. There is no point in doing it where the information has already been made available.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement concerning his recent official talks with the Prime Minister of Australia.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) on 1st May.

Has my right hon. Friend discussed with Mr. Whitlam the five-Power defence agreement on the Far East, particularly with regard to Singapore and Malaysia? Do the Australians intend to stay there or pull out?

I understand that the Australian Minister of Defence will be visiting the countries concerned with the five-Power defence agreement in the comparatively near future and that he will have discussions with his opposite numbers on this matter.

We know that the right hon. Gentleman usually fends off questions with reference to the test ban agreement, but will he tell us whether, following discussions with the Australian Prime Minister, he approves of or deplores the French test?

I take exactly the same view as the right hon. Gentleman did when he was Prime Minister.

Does the right hon. Gentleman reject or support the test?

I repeat my reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Australia and New Zealand having come to our aid—and to the aid of other countries which are now in the Common Market—during our time of trouble a decade ago, we ought to put the greatest possible pressure on the French Government to stop them holding further nuclear tests in the Pacific?

The French Government are and have long been well aware of our views. We told the Australian Prime Minister that we would convey to the French Government the resolution passed by the South Pacific Forum at which he had been present and at which the British dependencies were represented, which he specifically asked us to do.

In addition to conveying that resolution, will the right hon. Gentleman give his positive support to it not only in view of Australian and New Zealand views, but in view of the number of British subjects in that area who may be affected harmfully?

We have always monitored these tests, and we have not found that British subjects have suffered.

asked the Prime Minister what was the outcome of his meeting on 16th April 1973 with the deputation led by Mr. Graham Hill on the inadequacy of the new three-wheel invalid carriage, the P70; and if he will make a statement.

The main purpose of the deputation was to express its appreciation for the improvements made last year in the invalid vehicle service following the Government's review.

Nevertheless, is it not the case that even Mr. Graham Hill, with his admitted political tendencies to drive on the right, has to be respected for his view that this invalid carriage is not easy to drive? Given the kind of occupants, by definition, of these carriages, is it not high time that we adopted a four-wheeled carriage for these persons not only to give them the ability to drive as competently as the majority of drivers in this country but so that they may know they are less open to risk of injury should they be involved in a collision?

Part of the appreciation expressed was that we had made it possible for many of the disabled to have four-wheeled cars instead of the tri-car. The model P70 is an improvement on its predecessor, but further modifications and adaptations are now being made to it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Baroness Sharp is considering the whole question of the mobility of the disabled.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that most of us appreciate that there have been some improvements in the three-wheeled vehicle? However, may I ask him to change Government policy regarding the three-wheeled vehicle, which has not been made available to people who are housebound because they are not in employment? Does he realise that these people cannot get work because the vehicle is not made available for them to look for work? Will he try to change Government policy on this matter?

I agree that this is a major problem and that, because of the numbers of disabled involved, the cost is very large. On the two occasions when deputations have been to see me at No. 10, they have said that they wished to establish an order of priorities to help the disabled in accordance with the funds which become available. We have endeavoured to follow that order of priorities. No doubt this is a question on which we shall receive guidance from Baroness Sharp's inquiry.