asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on consultations between his office and the Commission of the EEC with regard to regional policy.

Mr. George Thomson, the EEC Commissioner responsible for regional policy, recently paid a two-day visit to Northern Ireland in the course of which he had discussions with my right hon. Friend and with a wide range of interested people. I have also had meetings with Mr. Thomson and his officials in London and in Brussels.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will his right hon. Friends the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Secretary of State follow up these matters with the Government of the Republic of Ireland?

These are matters that will be the concern of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

Does regional policy come within the responsibility of the new Executive in Northern Ireland? Will the Executive discuss regional policy directly with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, or will it be reserved entirely to the Westminster Government?

The Executive would certainly be concerned with regional policy and would discuss it. The main aspects would be matters for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, who is responsible for overall United Kingdom policy. As for relations with the South, regional policy matters could go on the agenda on the basis of the consent of both sides or of that of the future Council of Ireland, if so wished.

What arrangements will there be for an outlet for the Northern Ireland viewpoint in Brussels?

In my main answer I gave an indication of that, in the sense that the views of Northren Ireland are already being clearly heard in Brussels and were clearly put to the Commisioner when he recently visited Belfast, Londonderry and other parts of Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend need have no doubt that the views and interests of Northern Ireland are and will be heard in Brussels.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the arrangements for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections on 28th June.

Yes, Sir.

Does not the Minister agree that it is in the interests of the widest possible basis of political expression of the electors next Thursday and of the highest degree of participation that candidates and leaders of political parties avail themselves of free television time, and that any one of them should hesitate before refusing, for fear of taking a hammering from journalists, lest his refusal should veto the appearance of other candidates or jeopardise such programmes? Is not this one occasion when the vital need for political exposure should not be sacrificed to the customary requirement of political balance?

This is a matter on which candidates and parties must decide how they want to expose their political views before the election.

What arrangements is my hon. Friend making for security between now and the election?

Security needs are constantly under review, and there will be adequate and properly organised security on polling day. I hope that this matter can he handled fully by the police—the Royal Ulster Constabulary—but if security needs unhappily arise the resources will be there to meet them fully.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the Northern Ireland Assembly to have its first meeting.

Once the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill has been passed, the date will be determined after consultation with the leaders of the parties elected to the Assembly.

In the light of the legal difficulties that might arise about a formal meeting of the Assembly, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of starting with an informal meeting of the Assembly before it meets formally? It might then be easy to have the kind of consultative session that could be useful to determine whether the edifice envisaged in Clause 2 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill could ever be brought into being.

I think that I should be most cautious in replying to my hon. and gallant Friend. After all, one of the first needs of any Assembly is to have somebody to preside over its deliberations. If there were a meeting without anyone being in charge of the affair at all, we might find considerable difficulties. Therefore, the first business of the new Assembly must be to elect its presiding officer. It cannot do that until the Constitution Bill has been passed. I think that there are great advantages in having a formal first meeting. Meanwhile, there is nothing to stop informal consultations taking place before the Bill has been passed. At the moment, I am inclined to the view that the right course is to wait until the Bill has been passed and then have the formal first meeting of the Assembly to elect its presiding officer.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition fully endorse the approach that he has outlined? When his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) talks about a consultative process, it would seem that that is just another effort to bypass the Bill that is currently going through this House.

I do not know that I necessarily detected that approach in what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend. Nevertheless, it is important to face hard facts. To have an Assembly of any kind informally, without any rules of order, with no purpose before it, and with no one officially able to preside over it, might be a difficult proceeding.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that to have a social gathering prior to the special functions to be undertaken by the Assembly would be very useful? In this respect it would be following the precedent set by the Prime Minister, who invites the new boys to Parliament during their first week to assist him at No. 10 Downing Street.

A formal meeting is one thing and a social gathering another. I have never been averse to social gatherings.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will publish the latest report of the Community Relations Commission in Belfast on the social problems created by intimidation; and if he will make a statement.

Publication of the report is a matter for the Community Relations Commission, but I understand that a summary will appear in the next issue of the Commission's journal "Community Forum".

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but will he ensure that the recommendations of the working party of the Community Relations Commission are published in due course, and make known to the House the action he proposes to take on this serious problem?

I agree that this is an extremely serious problem. A working party, chaired by the Chairman of the Community Relations Commission, has been established, and it is not for me to anticipate its conclusions or how it wishes to present its recommendations. The hon. Gentleman need have no fears about full recognition being given to the serious situation. A number of agencies are at work, such as the Task Force and the Public Protection Agency. Those agencies are all concerned with intimidation, and it is a matter of which my right hon. Friend is closely aware and which we have under constant scrutiny.

Does not the Minister agree that the question of intimidation will continue until such time as the IRA lays down its arms?

The question of intimidation will certainly continue until those on all sides are prepared to come under law and order.

This problem of intimidation is not an easy one, but it does not involve just the IRA, although IRA members must be the greatest exponents of intimidation, in the very nature of things. It happens in Protestant areas as well. We read and hear a great deal about intimidation, and it relates not just to housing, though undoubtedly that has led to large numbers of people being moved from one part of Belfast to another. Do I understand that only the recommendations are to be published and that it will be a matter for the Community Relations Commission to decide whether we should see the full text?

No. I was talking about the outcome of the deliberations of the working party that is being set up. The summary of the Community Relations Commission report which was referred to in the original Question is to be published in the next issue of the Commission's journal.

I recognise the enormous social problems created by intimidation, but will my hon. Friend look at the position of owner-occupiers who are forced out of their houses? The recent scheme announced by the Housing Executive to purchase such properties is a move in the right direction. However, the main criterion is that premises must be vacant for six months. In that time houses can be almost completely destroyed by vandals, yet compensation is based on the value of the premises after vandalisation. Surely this is wrong.

I recognise the seriousness of this problem. However, may I point out to my hon. Friend that Question No. 8 directs itself to precisely this problem?

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the future policing of disturbed areas of Northern Ireland.

At present the policing of disturbed areas has to be undertaken jointly by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army. It is intended that the Royal Ulster Constabulary should take over full responsibility for policing in all areas.

I am grateful for that reply, but will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to place clearly on the record of this House—if someone will condescent to print it—that there is absolutely no truth in the rumours that have been deliberately circulated by people who ought to know better that Her Majesty's Government intend to supersede this magnificent force, to which we are so grateful—the Royal Ulster Constabulary—in parts or in the whole of Northern Ireland?

Yes. I gladly place on the record that there is no truth in these rumours.

What thought are the Government giving to the enormous problem of making the policing of former Republican "no-go" areas and, presumably, Protestant "no-go" areas more acceptable to the populations in those areas? It is a regrettable fact, but a fact, none the less, that in many areas the RUC is not acceptable as a fair and impartial police force. What is the police force doing to remedy the situation and win back the confidence of the people in those areas?

We are well aware of the problem, but we have to be careful about the meaning of the word "acceptable". At the moment there are extensive operations by the Army and the RUC in a number of areas, and the hope must be to return normal policing services to all areas. That is what all the people must surely want.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no intention of splitting the police force in Northern Ireland, and that he will not respond to Republican propaganda along these lines, which is designed to undermine the morale of our police?

I have given a firm assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), and I do not think I can go further than that.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I view the subject-matter of this Question as one of the most important problems yet to be solved in the Northern Ireland crisis. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of us believe that there has been a tremendous increase in the amount of what might be termed "normal" crime in the Six Counties in recent months? Some of it has been attributed to the IRA or the UDA, but it is normal thuggery, hooliganism and protection rackets. Some of us are disturbed at the hon. Gentleman's apparent complacency, which comes through the lack of constructive proposals for the future policing of the Six Counties.

The hon. Gentleman is right in his analysis of crimes. Some very unpleasant crimes have been committed. But I cannot see any ground for his use of the word "complacency". The efforts of the RUC in maintaining law and order have been highly successful. Sentences totalling 281 years, plus one life sentence, were imposed by the courts in May of this year alone. In that month 104 people appeared before the courts, 80 of whom were found guilty. The RUC has been highly successful in prosecuting the war on crime. It remains a desperately serious problem, and "complacency" is not the word to use here.

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

Unfortunately, some violence continues; mainly explosions, although there have been recently some clearly sectarian murders. At the same time, the security forces are achieving important captures of illegal arms, ammunition and explosives. So far this year, 732 terrorists have been charged with security offences.

Will my right hon. Friend explain the strategy behind the introduction of military police into police stations in trouble-free areas, as distinct from the areas referred to in the previous Question, especially where the RUC reserve is at full strength? Does he agree that this extension of Army involvement into ordinary law enforcement is likely to damage the morale of the RUC at a time when there is pressure on Her Majesty's Government to phase out the Army?

I have no evidence that the military police are being used in the circumstances that my hon. Friend suggests. However, wherever the military police are being used, they are under the command of the Chief Constable of the RUC. If my hon. Friend has evidence of specific instances in which this is happening, I shall be pleased to look into it. Our main purpose is to help and supplement the work of the RUC with military police in the difficult areas. That is the purpose of the military police reinforcements.

The Secretary of State referred to the continuation of sectarian murders, which is going on on both sides. Will he comment on the unfortunate murder of Mr. Herron's brother-in-law and the feelings of the security forces in this regard? What action is being taken in East Belfast against the intimi- dation, extortion and blackmail that is taking place at the moment?

It would be wrong for me to comment on a case that is still under investigation and where police inquiries are still continuing to seek those who may have been responsible for this murder. I could not be expected to comment one way or the other. Intimidation, threats and the rest must be dealt with from wherever they come. Whatever the source, they will be dealt with by the security forces to the best of their ability. The evidence of arrests and what has been done by the security forces in recent months shows that this is exactly the purpose that we have in mind.

Since our admirable security forces cannot be everywhere at once, does not my right hon. Friend think that the time has come when every man in Northern Ireland should be permitted to carry arms to protect his family and himself? So many murderers seem to drive off with impunity from the scene of their crimes that if I were a citizen of Northern Ireland I should be sorely tempted to carry a gun by day and night, whatever the law might say.

I can see the attractions from the individual's point of view, but my whole desire and determination is to reduce the number of arms about the place in Northern Ireland. Legally held arms under licence are comparatively few in number. We have taken action on this. Illegal arms are another matter, and they will be dealt with ruthlessly wherever they are found to be held, because the damage that a vast number of illegal arms can do is intolerable.

There will be widespread support on both sides of the House for what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. Can he throw any further light on steps that he intends to take in the future to get access to illegal arms held by various factions of the IRA, and now by various factions of the UDA? Will he consider a house-to-house search in certain parts of Belfast?

In general terms the right hon. Gentleman asks me to throw more light on further measures that might be taken. If I were to do that it could be counter-productive. The information that we are receiving from the general public through the robot-phone that we have and in many other ways is increasing all the time. The fact that people are prepared to come forward with information is extremely encouraging. Whenever that information seems well founded, searches are undertaken, and considerable successes have been gained on the basis of information. However, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the House will expect me to go into detail on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Building Societies Association in relation to the problems arising under the house purchase scheme, so as fairly to apportion between the owner and the building society the moneys received in relation to each house where the valuation is substantially less than the original purchase price.

I am not yet in a position to make a statement. Discussions with the Building Societies Association are continuing.

I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that a major social problem is involved here. Does he recognise that the scheme prepared by the Housing Executive, which is a great step forward, is very much in the nature of a salvage operation to help people who, through intimidation and other circumstances, are in a most difficult position? Does he accept that it would be unsatisfactory if the building society or the mortgagee had to take the full amount of compensation, which might be less than the current valuation of the premises, due to these entirely unsatisfactory conditions? Will he undertake that if a voluntary scheme cannot be prepared the Government will consider some form of legislation?

I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's concern in this matter. As he knows, the intention of the scheme is to relieve cases of acute hardship and offer help to those who have been deprived. It is not a scheme for full compensation for loss, nor could it be. I take the point about the difficulties of building societies. This is a complex matter. Discussions are going on and I think that they must be allowed to continue. However, we are aware of the urgency of the problem.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition have had representations from deputations and a great deal of correspondence about the situation that is developing, particularly in the Belfast area? We support the representations that have been made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills). Will the Minister consider this issue sympathetically.

I appreciate the point that has been made by the hon. Gentleman. I shall certainly do so.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for increases in the price of manufactured foodstuffs have been allowed by the Price Commission since the beginning of phase 2.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications the Price Commission has had for increases in manufactured food since its inception to the nearest available date.

The information requested by hon. Members is a matter for the Price Commission, which makes announcements about its work from time to time.

As the President of the United States had a Watergate on food price increases and introduced a freeze on them, and as we have had a flood gate of food price increases, may I ask the hon. Lady why, instead of passing the buck to the Price Commission, the Government do not introduce a freeze on all food prices?

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that Watergate and food prices have nothing in common. The Price Commission is publishing information for pre-notifying firms about all price increases that it accepts as being within the limits set by the code. I am aware that the Labour Party has been trying to make something of this point—[Interruption.] I said "has been trying to make something of this point"—and that its motion was rejected by the House on 7th May.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the world prices of the raw materials that food manufacturers are using have risen enormously over the last eight months and that, therefore, the margin that food manufacturers have been allowed has been eroded, leaving little profit? Does she also agree that there is a great need for further investment if our food processing industry is to continue to lead the world, particularly in Europe?

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The Opposition must be well aware, from the actions being taken in countries throughout the world, that the pressure on the world supply of food is now such that world food prices affect the markets in every country.

The hon. Lady must be finding it very difficult and embarrassing to hide behind the Price Commission. Is she aware that from the housewife's point of view the credibility of the Price Commission is collapsing before her very eyes? Our postbags certainly indicate that this is the situation. Does the hon. Lady agree that rather than the Price Commission becoming a watchdog, in the eyes of the community it is becoming more like a lapdog?

The Price Commission is operating in accordance with the code approved by Parliament. All permissions given are strictly within that code.

Will my hon. Friend remind me whether, when there was a so-called freeze under the Labour Government, food prices were exempt from any kind of control?

The Labour Government made no pretence that they could impose a freeze on fresh foods and on seasonal factors. Although we have been through a seasonal period, when the seasonal food factor has risen by 30 per cent., in the last winter of the Labour Government the seasonal food factor went up, in the same period by 28 per cent.

I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that it is a bit much to make that assertion when the increase in prices under this Government during the last three years has been twice that of the last three years of the Labour Government.

I must accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the letter from the Price Commission, but shops were not permitted to overcharge during the standstill period. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have seen, in the Press release issued yesterday by the Price Commission, that there were 116 approved price increases up to 15th June, that of that figure, 27 were in the food sector, and that of those, 13 increases amounted to less than 6 per cent.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what change in the general level of prices has occurred in the last three years; and by what amount the expenditure on food of the average family has risen since June 1970.

Information is not yet available for the full three years since June 1970. However, between the second quarter of 1970 and the first quarter of 1973 the General Index of Retail Prices rose by 23·6 per cent. and average weekly household expenditure on food as recorded in the National Food Survey by 23·2 per cent.

Is the hon. Lady aware that yesterday the House received confirmation of the terrible increase in the price of housing land and houses, and that today we are given no encouragement by her answer, since it confirms the fearful and entirely harmful increase in the price of food? Is the hon. Lady aware that this was not what was promised in June 1970? Would the hon. Lady care to offer a forecast or make a promise about the movement of food prices during the next 12 months, or does she no longer feel responsible?

I should not care to offer a forecast, for obvious reasons. As I said in reply to the first Question, a good deal of the increase over the last few months is due to world market prices, and I cannot make a forecast on those. It is interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman referred to other matters that are outside my control. The increase in expenditure on food represents the sum of 49p per person per week, and that should be related to the increase in wages over the same period.

One deplores the rise in food prices that has undoubtedly occurred in recent years, but will my hon. Friend tell the House how the Government's actions have enabled those in real need and necessity—pensioners, the sick and the disabled—to cope with the way in which these food prices have risen?

First, we initiated the annual review of pensions. As that was previously done biennially, the new system is an improvement and means that we are able annually to consider increases that affect particularly the most vulnerable in our community, namely, the disabled and the elderly. Secondly, by means of the family income supplement and the up-rating of benefits we have been able to ensure that rising prices do not bear too hardly upon those in our community who are most vulnerable.

May I take the hon. Lady up on the question of world food prices and raw materials? Will she undertake to investigate the position in those countries from which we get our raw materials and then tell the House how it is that the cost of living there is not increasing at the same rapid rate as it is here?

It is increasing at the same rate in those countries as it is here. This is a general world pattern.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest available percentage figures for the increase in food prices since 18th June 1970.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in the price of food since June 1970.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how far food prices have risen since June 1970.

Between 16th June 1970 and 17th April 1973, the latest date for which information is available, the food index rose by 34·1 per cent.

Does not the Minister agree that these figures show that, while the face of capitalism might be unacceptable to the Leader of her party, the body of capitalism is getting fatter and more bloated every day? Are not these figures the living reason why old-age pensioners are scratching around in the supermarkets, looking for scraps? What on earth was the Price Commission head appointed for, at £15,000 a year—to put prices up?

In real terms, old-age pensioners are better off now than they were under the last Government. As I quoted in answer to a previous question the percentage increase represents 42p per week to the pensioner; the pension for a single person has so far increased by £1·75 per week, and by October it will have increased by 55 per cent. since this Government took office.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, since 1970, overall expenditure on food has risen by 16·5 per cent., overall expenditure on pensions and benefits by 35 per cent. and personal savings by 38 per cent.? Does not this prove the hypocrisy of the charges of Labour Members? Will my hon. Friend stop apologising for something that we have no reason to apologise for?

I thank my hon. Friend. We should not apologise for ensuring that the old-age pension has risen by 55 per cent. since we took office. Hon. Members opposite will be aware that

"the United Kingdom is highly dependent on world food supplies and is thus vulnerable when those supplies come under pressure, as has happened recently."

In view of those shameful figures, can the hon. Lady give any indication of the effect that the latest bumper bundle of price increases, which were approved last week, will have? The figures that she has given today show that under her Government the food bill for the average family with two children has risen by over £2 a week. Will she now ask the Prime Minister whether, at long last, he will redeem the pledge that won him the last election—to cut prices at a stroke?

The hon. Member refers to the food bill for the average family. He should also, in fairness, have referred to the average wage increase over the last three years. Perhaps he would like to listen to the figures of the wage increases—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] No, I know that that he would not, but he is going to hear them just the same. For a farm worker, the wage increase has been £6.35 a week and for a National Health Service ancillary hospital worker it has been £5·73. Measured against that is a rise in the cost of food of 49p per person per week.

The people are getting sick of two things—[Laughter.]—and they are both in front of us. We are sick of the increase in prices, which is now double that of the entire period of the Labour Government. Is the hon. Lady not aware that it is time that the Minister of Agriculture or the Prime Minister himself stood up to deal with these questions instead of leaving them to the hon. Lady? The Prime Minister, who made the pledge, should now either apologise to the British people or resign.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what foodstuffs imported into the United Kingdom from outside the EEC are now subject to import duties or levies.

The answer is the same as that given to the right hon. Gentleman in reply to his Question on 14th June.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government have themselves imposed food taxes on mutton, lamb, pork, bacon, eggs, fish, butter, cheese, fruit and vegetables?

I confirm precisely what was in the answer to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I also tell the right hon. Gentleman that on entering the European Community we accepted certain obligations, which we are now carrying through.

Will my right hon. Friend say what effect changes in the level of import levies have had on food prices?

Since our entry into the Community, I have made it clear on various occasions that the effect has been minimal so far. The expected cost in 1973 is an addition of 1½ per cent. on food costs.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to charges being imposed on certain items. Is that the same as taxes?

I do not think that "taxes" is the correct word. These are charges. There are levies in certain cases, and compensatory amounts in others; there has to be a balancing effect in regard to some, because some reduce the price of Community food coming to this country. Therefore, there are charges and balancing compensatory amounts. It is not so simple as to enable one to put it in the way that the hon. Gentleman did.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that at the same time as levies were introduced on these few items, purchase tax and SET were reduced on all food items?

Yes, Sir. It is true that the Government have removed the food taxes imposed by the previous Labour Government.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further proposals he intends to make for reform of the EEC common agricultural policy.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) on 17th May.—[Vol. 856, c. 1680–81.]

In view of the Prime Minister's statement early this week that in the autumn there would be a complete review of the common agricultural policy, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he sticks to his point of view that the basic principles of the CAP are sacrosanct?

I accept, in the same way as the Leader of the Opposition did, that the basic principles of the CAP had to be accepted as part of our accession agreement. I have never varied from that position, but that does not mean that there cannot be some significant changes in the way in which the CAP is operated, and I have indicated in othe House various ways in which that could be done which would be helpful to all consumers in the Community, and to producers.

Will my right hon. Friend lay before Parliament, in the form of a Green Paper if not a White Paper, the general outline of the proposals that he proposes to make?

I should like to consider the point made by my right hon. Friend. The proposals for reform of the CAP will come from the Commission. We are giving our own thoughts at all levels to the Commission, and in the Council of Ministers generally, over a period of time. We are not tabling specific papers to the Commission, but we shall be playing an active part in the discussions in relation to this matter, and on many occasions in the Council of Ministers I have indicated our line of thinking. It is not the case that we shall be putting forward formal documents in the sense that my right hon. Friend indicates.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with six of my hon. Friends, I visited Brussels last week? Having gone there with a feeling of apprehension, I detected a sense of deep alarm. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the No. 2 British official there said that the CAP was not working? In view of the contribution that this country makes to the budget of the EEC, and in view of the inefficiency of this policy and its cost, the right hon. Gentleman should condemn it and seek to renegotiate it right away.

I do not accept that it is not working, and I am surprised that any official should have said this. It is working, and working in a way which, when we entered, we accepted that it would work. The negotiations that we have had this year have helped us to point out to the Community—and to bring about in the Community—certain changes which I think are helpful. When the hon. Gentleman is next over there, I hope that he will look me up, particularly in the small hours of the morning, when we are sitting, so that we can discuss these matters.

While my right hon. Friend is considering whether to publish a Green Paper or a White Paper, will he publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those basic principles that he feels he has to keep in the common agricultural policy, because this is a little obscure to some of us?

I suggest that these matters were fully dealt with during the debates on accession. There is nothing that I can add to these matters that would be served by publication in this form. There were the conditions which were clearly stated when we negotiated, which have been fully debated here many times, and there is no point, at this stage, in my adding to what has been said.

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to pay an official visit to the site of the National Exhibition Centre.

Earlier this year I attended the ceremony to mark the opening of work on the centre but I have no plans at present for a further visit.

I welcome the fact that the work on the site is going according to schedule, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that the success of this centre is of such vital concern to the nation that it is essential that we have adequate ancillaries, such as air, road and rail links, and hotel accommodation, before the opening in January 1976? Will he give a personal undertaking to see that there is adequate co-ordination as necessary between Government Departments to achieve this aim?

This is widely recognised throughout the Midlands, as well as a large part of the rest of the country, to be a most important project, which has had the support of all parties concerned. The two central Government Departments mainly concerned—the DTI and the DoE—are in close contact about the co-ordination for which my hon. Friend has asked. The development will be considerable, of course. There will be a 400-room hotel, a 250-room motel, a conference centre, and parking for 15,000 cars. The infrastructure which will be required for this, including, I understand, improved airport facilities, will be co-ordinated by the Departments concerned because of the importance that we attach to it.

When the National Exhibition Centre is completed, will the Prime Minister arrange to have on display there the basket of groceries that was on display at Conservative Central Office in June 1970, together with the prices they cost then and the prices they cost now?

What I do know is that another Conservative Government will be able to see this project through to its fruition.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Conservative Women's Conference on 23rd May on the exertion of Great Britain's influence abroad.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on company law to the Conservative Women's Conference on 23rd May.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech which he made to the Conservative Women's Conference in London on 23rd May 1973 on aspects of capitalism.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government aims, at Central Hall, Westminster, on 23rd May.

I did so on 24th May, Sir.

How does the Prime Minister reconcile the rather grandiose generalities about Britain's influence in the world, with which he regaled the Conservative ladies, with his inability to dent President Pompidou's policy across the Channel on nuclear tests?

On the hon. Member's own basis, nation States of the Community are still responsible for their own defence and foreign policy.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that despite the much-regretted but nevertheless-to-be-enforced withdrawal of Mr. Hugh Scanlon from the TUC team negotiating over phase 3, these negotiations will continue to what we hope will be a successful conclusion? Will he further reassure the House that the Government will continue to represent the interests of the nation as a whole, but particularly of those groups that are not represented by trade unions and are therefore liable to suffer more than most in conditions of excessive inflation?

Yes, Sir—that is the purpose of the talks that the Government have now resumed with the TUC and the CBI. I regret the absence of Mr. Scanlon from these talks. Mr. Scanlon has said that he believes that the decision was wrong but that he must be bound by it. The General Secretary of the TUC has already spoken of continuing talks with the Government, but the makeup of the delegation of the TUC is entirely a matter for the TUC.

In his speech the Prime Minister seemed to suggest that the excesses and abuses of the capitalist system, to which he referred, were just isolated events. Is he not aware that tax mitigation schemes now represent a very large growth industry in Britain and that tax havens are used on a widespread basis? What effective action will the right hon. Gentleman take, instead of his pathetic bleatings, to deal with these very real abuses as a matter of great urgency?

Where there is abuse of the existing law the Government have already taken action to set up an inquiry into the case. This is quite appropriate under the Companies Act. As I have told the House, the reform of companies legislation, which is normally carried through every 10 years, will be carried through by the present Government in the next Session. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already given the House information about the attention that he has given to specific examples of tax avoidance and evasion that have been brought to his notice.

In his speech my right hon. Friend referred to the Labour Party's programme. In view of the apparent concern shown by the Labour Party about food prices, will he explain to the nation how the nationalisation of 25 major companies in Britain, at an unexplained expense to the taxpayer, will reduce food prices?

That is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition or one of his right hon. Friends to deal with.

In view of the bumbling incompetence shown by the firm, Slater Walker, in handling its own affairs over recent weeks, does the Prime Minister feel that this qualifies the firm to have taken over 100 companies over the last 18 months without any mandate from the British people, or is this another aspect of the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism to which the right hon. Gentleman now regularly refers?

If the right hon. Gentleman is making accusations that a particular firm has broken the law, he ought to inform the Director of Public Prosecutions. If he is not making an accusation of breaking the law, it is a matter for the shareholders of the firm to take their own decision.

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

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

Ought not the Prime Minister to have plans to do so and to indicate to the President of France that he is not his lapdog but is prepared to talk to the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand and pledge our full support for their opposition to the plans of the President of France to poison the atmosphere around their coasts, saying quite clearly that we stand by the Australians and New Zealanders and are opposed to the French President's policy?

During the last few weeks, I have had detailed discussions with the Prime Minister of Australia and the Deputy Prime Minister in London. What is more, both Governments have made their representations direct to President Pompidou in Paris.

Is it not possible for the Prime Minister to do something more? Does he not accept that our kith and kin in Australia and New Zealand—I am using terms acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman—are in serious danger as a consequence of the nuclear explosion proposed by France? Would not it be better if we in the House, through the Prime Minister, expressed in no uncertain terms our absolute abhorrence of the actions of the French Government?

I have told the House constantly that the French Government are well aware of the views of the present British Government, as they were aware of the views of our predecessors.

If the Prime Minister changes his mind and goes to Australia, will he stop off in Rugby on the way and explain to the housewives in my constituency why prices have risen by 35 per cent. since he was elected?

If the hon. Gentleman had any information about the movement of world prices, he would be able to do that for himself.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the degree of co-ordination between the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment with regard to regional devolution.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friends have co-operated closely in implementing the Government's policy that, within the framework of a united country, as much decision-making as possible should be devolved.

Will the Prime Minister accept that we are not content, particularly in Scotland, with his repeated bleatings about legislative devolution? Will he accept that his statements of his Government's policy would be, much more meaningful if they made a clear statement regarding the distribution of civil servants, in terms of offices, and the prevention of the expansion of the Maplin complex? If the right hon. Gentleman is really concerned about meaningful devolution, this is the type of governmental policy that ought to be followed.

There is a complex of questions in what the hon. Gentleman has asked. First, legislative devolution is a matter that is being considered by the Commission on the Constitution. Its report is due in the fairly near future. We ought to await that report and see the recommendations in this respect.

Does the Prime Minister regard the dispersal of civil servants a a legitimate instrument in regional policy? If so, does he regard the Hardman Report as coming anywhere near meeting that requirement?

I think that it is made clear in the Hardman Report that one of the essential matters to be considered is the regional situation in the country. I have constantly emphasised that I regard it has an essential element of regional policy. On the specific recommendations of the Hardman Report, the Government will listen to all the views expressed from different parts of the country, as I have already told the House, by staff associations and others concerned. Having heard them, we shall then be able to come to a conclusion on the report as a whole.

asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received recently concerning security within Government Departments.

I have received communications from hon. Members and from members of the public about the matters referred to in my statement to the House on 24th May. These matters have now been referred to the Security Commission.

Is any consideration being given to the form in which Ministers might be vetted before appointment? Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that when the Franks Committee report is debated—as I hope it will be next week or some time soon—the Government will not make their proposals immediately on concluding the debate but will give serious consideration to the views of the House on all the matters pertaining to Franks, and to the attitude of the Press and outside bodies concerned to the Franks Report?

On the first part of the question, I think that all recent Governments have given consideration to the point that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I should have thought that in present circumstances we had better await the report of the Security Commission and see whether it has any recommendations to make in this regard.

Now that nearly a year has elapsed since the Security Commission was asked to investigate the cases of Bingham and Hinchcliffe, when will the publishable part of its report be made public?

It will be published very shortly indeed. All the normal procedures have been carried through, both in consultations with the security services, after the report was written, and with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I know the time that this has taken, but the hon. Gentleman will see from the report that certain judicial activities had to be carried on in the course of this, and although the Committee can start its proceedings under the rules that were changed by the right hon. Gentleman before a court case is finished, nevertheless, concerning certain witnesses and principals, it has to await the conclusion of those proceedings before it can finally complete them. That is what happened in this case.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meetings with the TUC and CBI regarding phase 3 of the Government's prices and incomes policy.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply to the Question by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), which the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) will not have heard because his hon. Friend was not here to ask it.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his reply is in the true tradition of our Prime Minister, and is somewhat obscure. Would it not be a good idea for him and his Government to lay before the CBI and the TUC clear and specific proposals on how much the Government are prepared to concede on things like rents, old-age pensions, and on the Industrial Relations Act, so that the country may know just how the negotiations are to be conducted and how much is available, especially to the TUC?

At our last meeting with the TUC it was agreed that there were five particular areas affecting the economy, the social services, and industrial relations, which would be subjects of discussion between the TUC and the Government. The TUC then asked that there should be a break before the next meeting, during which, the subjects having been settled, it would prepare itself to come back to the Government and express its views about these items. That seemed to both sides the right way of going about it and that is what is now happening.

When my right hon. Friend last met the TUC and the CBI was there any discussion on the employment figures, with particular reference to the shortage of labour that has now appeared in many industries?

The TUC naturally welcomed the reduction in the unemployment figures, which has again been emphasised today. It also accepted, at the instigation of the Government, that one of the subjects that we should study and discuss together was the best use of the national resources, particularly in those areas where shortages of particular skills are becoming evident.

Recalling that last autumn and again earlier this year the Government refused even to contemplate the use of food subsidies, on the ground that they felt that they would inevitably mean rationing—however wrong that view might be—do they now accept our view that food subsidies are necessary in this situation—a view shared by the TUC? Does the right hon. Gentleman still believe that food subsidies would mean rationing, or is he now prepared to consider them with an open mind?

Far from our having excluded food subsidies, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced certain specific food subsidies which the Government used. In particular, we used them on sugar and potatoes and one or two other items. The right hon. Gentleman must distinguish between those items where food subsidies can be used, where there is a surplus and in order to bring prices down still further for the housewife, and those items of which there is a world shortage and where prices would be pushed up still further by the system the right hon. Gentleman wants to introduce. The TUC recognises this.

As the Prime Minister knows, the TUC is still pressing for food subsidies on those items where prices have risen most. I know that he would not wish to mislead the House about this. We are all capable of distinguishing between one food and another. The distinction made by most people is that those foodstuffs which have risen most in price are the ones that the Government have done nothing about. Does the right hon. Gentleman still argue, in those cases, that it would mean rationing, and is he prepared to think again and introduce food subsidies, or is he not?

The foods whose prices have risen most are those which are in shortest supply in the world—that is, cereals and meat. As for the TUC talks, the situation is exactly the same as it was last summer and autumn; these matters can be fully discussed, as they have been already.

The Prime Minister must answer the question. He always tells us that matters can be fully discussed—like the political things he ruled out for action last year, such as housing. Has he now ruled out anything for action? Is he to deal with housing and food prices, or is he now saying that anything that is subject to world prices is not a matter on which he can introduce subsidies? Is he saying that, or not?

What I am saying is that we are fully prepared to discuss these things and to listen. The Government are just as entitled to express their view on these matters as are the TUC and the CBI That is accepted by both sides. A year ago these matters were not excluded. Housing and rents were not excluded, and they were all discussed.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a point about Question No. 5 to the Prime Minister? My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) was unable to be here to ask that Question for reasons which the Prime Minister may not be aware of. Is it proper for the Prime Minister, in replying to Question No. 10, to refer to the answer to Question No. 5, which we were not given because of the absence of my hon. Friend? [Interruption.] May I finish my point, Mr. Speaker?

Order. No, because it is not a point of order.

It should be.

If the House would impose upon the Chair the burden of censuring answers by Ministers, the Chair would, of course, do its best, but at the moment that is not the rule.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely there is no precedent for this. If a Question is not put it is the duty of the Minister if it is subsequently put in a different or similar form on a later Question to give the answer which was originally sought.

That is not a matter for order. The content of an answer is entirely a matter for the Minister who made it.